Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Immigrants from Oceania
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Immigrants from Oceania
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
6,183
SOCIAL INDEX
59.3/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
161st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Immigrants from Oceania Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 119,698,402 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Oceania within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.168. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.021% in Immigrants from Oceania. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 20.6 Immigrants from Oceania.
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($70,005 compared to $89,100, a difference of 27.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $103,705, a difference of 26.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $97,623, a difference of 25.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 25.6%, a difference of 5.9%), median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $55,712, a difference of 16.5%), and median earnings ($40,672 compared to $47,617, a difference of 17.1%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Excellent $45,220 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Excellent $106,453 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Exceptional $89,100 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Excellent $47,617 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Good $55,712 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Good $40,297 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Exceptional $53,680 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Excellent $97,623 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Excellent $103,705 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Exceptional $64,416 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Average 25.6% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 31.5%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 29.1%), and single female poverty (26.3% compared to 20.7%, a difference of 27.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 0.19%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 2.4%), and receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 15.0%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Average 12.3% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Good 8.7% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Average 11.2% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Average 13.3% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Excellent 19.7% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Average 13.5% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Good 16.9% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Good 15.9% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Good 16.0% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Good 16.1% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Exceptional 12.4% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Good 20.7% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Exceptional 15.4% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Good 28.7% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Good 5.0% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Excellent 10.4% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Excellent 11.7% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Good 11.4% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 22.3%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 19.8%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.38%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.9% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 0.48%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.4% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 1.5%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Good 5.2% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Average 5.3% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Good 5.2% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Excellent 11.4% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Excellent 17.2% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Exceptional 10.0% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Exceptional 6.4% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Good 5.4% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Fair 4.8% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Excellent 4.4% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 5.2% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Poor 9.0% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Good 7.5% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Exceptional 8.1% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Excellent 5.3% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 5.1%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 79.3%, a difference of 4.1%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 82.1%, a difference of 3.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 37.9%, a difference of 1.1%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.0%, a difference of 2.6%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Excellent 65.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Poor 79.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Exceptional 37.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Exceptional 76.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 84.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 84.0% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Tragic 83.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Tragic 82.1% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 19.1%), births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 30.6%, a difference of 18.7%), and single mother households (7.0% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 12.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.6% compared to 46.5%, a difference of 0.12%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 0.38%), and family households (64.4% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 0.78%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Exceptional 64.9% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Exceptional 28.1% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Good 46.9% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Exceptional 3.29 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Tragic 2.5% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Average 6.3% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Average 46.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Good 11.9% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Excellent 30.6% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 23.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 2.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 57.5%, a difference of 2.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 1.8%), 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 2.1%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 57.5%, a difference of 2.5%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Excellent 9.7% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Excellent 90.4% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Exceptional 57.5% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Exceptional 21.8% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Exceptional 7.6% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 35.9%), no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 32.4%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 28.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 11th grade (92.3% compared to 92.2%, a difference of 0.11%), high school diploma (88.4% compared to 88.8%, a difference of 0.43%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.58%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Poor 2.2% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Poor 97.8% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Poor 97.8% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Poor 97.8% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Poor 97.7% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Tragic 97.6% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Tragic 97.3% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Poor 97.1% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Poor 96.8% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Tragic 95.7% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Tragic 95.3% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Poor 94.5% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Poor 93.4% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Fair 92.2% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Fair 90.9% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Fair 88.8% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Fair 85.5% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Average 65.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Average 59.4% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Fair 45.8% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Fair 37.3% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Fair 14.7% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Good 4.6% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Good 1.9% |
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Oceania Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 49.8%), vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 46.3%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 41.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 5.1%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 48.0%, a difference of 6.6%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 14.6%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Immigrants from Oceania |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Fair 11.8% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Fair 11.4% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Good 12.1% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Exceptional 1.2% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Exceptional 5.4% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Fair 6.7% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Fair 11.4% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Poor 24.0% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 48.0% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Average 2.2% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 3.2% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Tragic 17.6% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Good 6.1% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Fair 2.5% |