Crow Poverty
COMPARE
Crow
Select to Compare
Poverty
Crow Poverty
20.7%
POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
339th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Crow Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 59,200,262 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Crow and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.304 and weighted average of 20.7%. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Crow within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.11% in poverty level.
It is essential to understand that the correlation between the percentage of Crow and poverty level does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. It remains uncertain whether the presence of Crow influences an upward or downward trend in the level of poverty level within an area, or if Crow simply ended up residing in those areas with higher or lower levels of poverty level due to other factors.
Demographics Similar to Crow by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Crow are Yup'ik (20.8%, a difference of 0.75%), Hopi (20.8%, a difference of 0.93%), Yuman (20.2%, a difference of 2.2%), Immigrants from Yemen (21.5%, a difference of 4.1%), and Sioux (19.8%, a difference of 4.5%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
Natives/Alaskans | 0.0 /100 | #332 | Tragic 18.1% |
Houma | 0.0 /100 | #333 | Tragic 18.4% |
Apache | 0.0 /100 | #334 | Tragic 18.4% |
Cheyenne | 0.0 /100 | #335 | Tragic 18.9% |
Pueblo | 0.0 /100 | #336 | Tragic 19.4% |
Sioux | 0.0 /100 | #337 | Tragic 19.8% |
Yuman | 0.0 /100 | #338 | Tragic 20.2% |
Crow | 0.0 /100 | #339 | Tragic 20.7% |
Yup'ik | 0.0 /100 | #340 | Tragic 20.8% |
Hopi | 0.0 /100 | #341 | Tragic 20.8% |
Immigrants from Yemen | 0.0 /100 | #342 | Tragic 21.5% |
Pima | 0.0 /100 | #343 | Tragic 21.9% |
Lumbee | 0.0 /100 | #344 | Tragic 21.9% |
Navajo | 0.0 /100 | #345 | Tragic 23.1% |
Puerto Ricans | 0.0 /100 | #346 | Tragic 23.7% |
Crow Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Crow Data | Poverty Data |
Minimum | 0.023% | 2.1% |
Maximum | 93.4% | 47.5% |
Range | 93.4% | 45.4% |
Mean | 30.9% | 23.5% |
Median | 12.5% | 19.2% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.2% | 14.3% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 68.2% | 36.4% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 64.0% | 22.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 34.3% | 12.7% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 33.8% | 12.5% |
Correlation Details
Crow Percentile | Sample Size | Poverty |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.023% | 58,535,523 | 14.6% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.59% | 294,827 | 14.3% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.26% | 166,103 | 13.3% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.61% | 93,100 | 13.5% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.07% | 7,192 | 15.3% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.45% | 49,253 | 15.8% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.87% | 2,129 | 9.3% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.26% | 11,598 | 19.2% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.23% | 1,560 | 37.9% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.97% | 5,276 | 29.2% |
[ 5.0% - 5.5% ] 5.10% | 1,019 | 16.4% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 5.79% | 1,953 | 19.2% |
[ 6.5% - 7.0% ] 6.61% | 4,223 | 38.0% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.01% | 785 | 16.1% |
[ 9.0% - 9.5% ] 9.45% | 2,064 | 47.5% |
[ 10.0% - 10.5% ] 10.08% | 2,817 | 37.6% |
[ 11.0% - 11.5% ] 11.36% | 176 | 29.5% |
[ 12.0% - 12.5% ] 12.50% | 48 | 2.1% |
[ 13.5% - 14.0% ] 13.79% | 428 | 40.4% |
[ 15.0% - 15.5% ] 15.00% | 40 | 2.5% |
[ 15.5% - 16.0% ] 15.56% | 1,125 | 24.8% |
[ 22.0% - 22.5% ] 22.35% | 783 | 28.0% |
[ 32.5% - 33.0% ] 32.75% | 3,985 | 19.2% |
[ 35.0% - 35.5% ] 35.12% | 5,199 | 18.9% |
[ 40.0% - 40.5% ] 40.12% | 172 | 7.9% |
[ 56.0% - 56.5% ] 56.41% | 78 | 11.5% |
[ 68.0% - 68.5% ] 68.23% | 576 | 24.7% |
[ 77.0% - 77.5% ] 77.09% | 1,602 | 24.6% |
[ 79.5% - 80.0% ] 79.96% | 459 | 36.4% |
[ 85.5% - 86.0% ] 85.61% | 660 | 29.8% |
[ 86.5% - 87.0% ] 86.61% | 2,180 | 44.8% |
[ 87.0% - 87.5% ] 87.40% | 262 | 37.5% |
[ 89.0% - 89.5% ] 89.03% | 629 | 31.1% |
[ 91.5% - 92.0% ] 91.65% | 1,965 | 46.2% |
[ 93.0% - 93.5% ] 93.45% | 473 | 6.6% |