Chickasaw vs Ute Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Ute
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Ute
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,439
SOCIAL INDEX
21.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
258th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Ute Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 40,610,237 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Ute within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.167. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.012% in Ute. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to a decrease of 12.4 Ute.
Chickasaw vs Ute Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $49,997, a difference of 11.7%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $82,166, a difference of 5.4%), and median household income ($70,005 compared to $72,402, a difference of 3.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($36,475 compared to $36,651, a difference of 0.48%), median earnings ($40,672 compared to $41,051, a difference of 0.93%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $52,949, a difference of 1.5%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Tragic $36,651 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Tragic $87,596 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Tragic $72,402 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Tragic $41,051 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Tragic $48,899 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Tragic $34,960 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Tragic $49,997 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Tragic $82,166 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Tragic $83,937 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Tragic $52,949 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Tragic 27.8% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in male poverty (13.5% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 20.4%), poverty (14.7% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 15.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 13.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (19.0% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 2.4%), single mother poverty (34.4% compared to 35.7%, a difference of 3.7%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 25.4%, a difference of 3.8%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Tragic 16.9% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Tragic 12.1% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Tragic 16.2% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Tragic 17.5% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Tragic 25.4% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Tragic 17.9% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Tragic 23.5% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Tragic 21.5% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Tragic 21.6% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Tragic 21.8% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Tragic 15.7% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Tragic 28.4% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Tragic 18.5% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Tragic 35.7% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Tragic 6.4% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Tragic 12.2% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Tragic 12.9% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Tragic 14.7% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 45.8%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 43.7%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 38.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 1.5%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 7.9%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 8.1%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Tragic 6.3% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Tragic 6.6% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Tragic 6.1% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Tragic 13.3% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Tragic 19.6% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Tragic 11.2% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Poor 6.8% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Tragic 7.0% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Tragic 5.3% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 6.2% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Tragic 5.2% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Fair 4.9% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 6.5% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Tragic 6.3% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Exceptional 6.8% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Exceptional 6.5% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Exceptional 7.0% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Tragic 5.9% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 78.9%, a difference of 3.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 37.1%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 73.8%, a difference of 0.90%), in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 80.8%, a difference of 1.3%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 79.4%, a difference of 1.8%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Tragic 60.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Tragic 73.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Good 37.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Tragic 73.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 80.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 78.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Tragic 79.4% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Tragic 76.6% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 12.4%), births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 33.0%, a difference of 10.0%), and average family size (3.19 compared to 3.49, a difference of 9.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 64.3%, a difference of 0.090%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 0.25%), and single mother households (7.0% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 0.86%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Average 64.3% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Exceptional 28.2% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Tragic 44.4% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Exceptional 3.49 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Tragic 3.0% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Tragic 7.1% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Tragic 43.9% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Tragic 12.6% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Poor 33.0% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 47.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 17.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 4.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 2.1%), 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 4.0%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 4.3%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Tragic 11.6% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Tragic 88.7% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Exceptional 56.6% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Exceptional 22.7% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Exceptional 8.8% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 33.5%), no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 33.4%), and professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 19.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of associate's degree (38.6% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.040%), nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.17%), and kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.17%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Tragic 2.3% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.2% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.2% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.2% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.1% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.0% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Excellent 97.7% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Good 97.4% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Good 97.1% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Average 96.1% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Average 95.8% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Good 95.0% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Fair 93.4% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Tragic 91.1% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Tragic 89.0% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Tragic 86.2% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Tragic 81.8% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Tragic 60.2% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Tragic 53.8% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Tragic 38.6% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Tragic 30.9% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Tragic 11.7% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 4.0% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Chickasaw vs Ute Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Ute communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 0.86%, a difference of 102.1%), ambulatory disability (8.0% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 34.6%), and vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 32.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 52.6%, a difference of 2.7%), cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.3%, a difference of 7.0%), and disability age 65 to 74 (30.2% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 10.6%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Ute |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Poor 11.9% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Tragic 11.6% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Poor 12.4% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Exceptional 0.86% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Excellent 5.5% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 7.0% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Tragic 13.4% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Tragic 27.3% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 52.6% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Tragic 2.4% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 3.5% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Average 17.3% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Excellent 6.0% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Average 2.5% |