Pima Poverty
COMPARE
Pima
Select to Compare
Poverty
Pima Poverty
21.9%
POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
343rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Pima Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 61,541,821 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Pima and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.559 and weighted average of 21.9%. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.24% in poverty level.

It is essential to understand that the correlation between the percentage of Pima and poverty level does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. It remains uncertain whether the presence of Pima influences an upward or downward trend in the level of poverty level within an area, or if Pima simply ended up residing in those areas with higher or lower levels of poverty level due to other factors.
Demographics Similar to Pima by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Pima are Lumbee (21.9%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from Yemen (21.5%, a difference of 1.6%), Hopi (20.8%, a difference of 4.8%), Yup'ik (20.8%, a difference of 5.0%), and Navajo (23.1%, a difference of 5.6%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
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% |
Tohono O'odham | 0.0 /100 | #347 | Tragic 24.4% |
Pima Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Pima Data | Poverty Data |
Minimum | 0.038% | 2.5% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 80.8% |
Range | 100.0% | 78.3% |
Mean | 37.4% | 26.5% |
Median | 12.3% | 24.9% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.0% | 15.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 77.9% | 34.9% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 73.9% | 19.8% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 37.4% | 16.1% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 36.8% | 15.8% |
Correlation Details
Pima Percentile | Sample Size | Poverty |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.038% | 60,537,692 | 14.8% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.71% | 540,838 | 17.2% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.10% | 224,372 | 17.8% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.66% | 66,702 | 11.0% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.23% | 53,054 | 13.8% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.76% | 5,078 | 16.5% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.20% | 7,278 | 28.8% |
[ 3.5% - 4.0% ] 3.77% | 3,426 | 17.7% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.15% | 5,836 | 24.7% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.99% | 51,156 | 10.6% |
[ 5.0% - 5.5% ] 5.32% | 1,371 | 23.3% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 5.92% | 2,027 | 21.3% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.01% | 1,370 | 15.3% |
[ 9.5% - 10.0% ] 9.57% | 115 | 45.2% |
[ 10.5% - 11.0% ] 10.78% | 102 | 30.4% |
[ 11.0% - 11.5% ] 11.29% | 17,830 | 24.9% |
[ 12.0% - 12.5% ] 12.28% | 1,270 | 2.5% |
[ 12.5% - 13.0% ] 12.92% | 387 | 28.4% |
[ 30.0% - 30.5% ] 30.03% | 383 | 6.3% |
[ 48.0% - 48.5% ] 48.39% | 965 | 34.6% |
[ 68.5% - 69.0% ] 68.98% | 332 | 27.1% |
[ 71.0% - 71.5% ] 71.13% | 478 | 32.0% |
[ 73.5% - 74.0% ] 73.77% | 385 | 8.6% |
[ 75.5% - 76.0% ] 75.80% | 1,835 | 38.9% |
[ 76.5% - 77.0% ] 76.81% | 470 | 10.9% |
[ 78.5% - 79.0% ] 78.99% | 2,713 | 28.1% |
[ 79.0% - 79.5% ] 79.26% | 4,538 | 26.0% |
[ 83.0% - 83.5% ] 83.14% | 4,139 | 35.1% |
[ 84.5% - 85.0% ] 84.86% | 733 | 36.4% |
[ 85.5% - 86.0% ] 85.85% | 615 | 80.8% |
[ 86.5% - 87.0% ] 86.98% | 3,265 | 49.0% |
[ 90.5% - 91.0% ] 90.94% | 806 | 38.1% |
[ 99.5% - 100.0% ] 100.00% | 260 | 58.5% |