Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Community Comparison
COMPARE
Guatemalan
Chickasaw
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Guatemalans
Chickasaw
1,497
SOCIAL INDEX
12.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
305th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Chickasaw Integration in Guatemalan Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 132,678,495 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Guatemalan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.172. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Guatemalans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.002% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Guatemalans corresponds to an increase of 2.3 Chickasaw.
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.6% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 20.1%), householder income under 25 years ($51,525 compared to $44,763, a difference of 15.1%), and median household income ($75,961 compared to $70,005, a difference of 8.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median earnings ($41,205 compared to $40,672, a difference of 1.3%), householder income over 65 years ($54,526 compared to $53,732, a difference of 1.5%), and median male earnings ($46,736 compared to $47,832, a difference of 2.3%).
Income Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $37,766 | Tragic $36,475 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $88,295 | Tragic $85,356 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $75,961 | Tragic $70,005 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $41,205 | Tragic $40,672 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $46,736 | Tragic $47,832 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $35,695 | Tragic $34,414 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Poor $51,525 | Tragic $44,763 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $82,331 | Tragic $77,929 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $87,705 | Tragic $82,193 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $54,526 | Tragic $53,732 |
Wage/Income Gap | Exceptional 22.6% | Tragic 27.2% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (14.8% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 27.1%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (13.5% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 26.6%), and married-couple family poverty (7.0% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 21.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (21.6% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 0.82%), male poverty (13.8% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 2.4%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (16.4% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 3.8%).
Poverty Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
Poverty | Tragic 15.3% | Tragic 14.7% |
Families | Tragic 11.7% | Tragic 10.8% |
Males | Tragic 13.8% | Tragic 13.5% |
Females | Tragic 16.7% | Tragic 15.9% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 20.7% | Tragic 24.5% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 16.4% | Tragic 17.0% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.6% | Tragic 21.8% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 21.2% | Tragic 19.5% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 21.1% | Tragic 19.8% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 21.4% | Tragic 19.6% |
Single Males | Tragic 13.8% | Tragic 16.3% |
Single Females | Tragic 23.8% | Tragic 26.3% |
Single Fathers | Poor 16.6% | Tragic 19.0% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 32.9% | Tragic 34.4% |
Married Couples | Tragic 7.0% | Tragic 5.8% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Tragic 13.5% | Good 10.7% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Tragic 14.8% | Exceptional 11.6% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 14.4% | Tragic 13.1% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 26.7%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 23.9%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.2% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 20.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.7% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 3.5%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 3.6%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.1% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 4.4%).
Unemployment Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
Unemployment | Tragic 5.8% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Males | Tragic 5.6% | Excellent 5.2% |
Females | Tragic 6.0% | Excellent 5.1% |
Youth < 25 | Tragic 12.1% | Exceptional 11.2% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Tragic 18.6% | Exceptional 16.7% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Poor 10.5% | Exceptional 9.9% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Tragic 7.1% | Fair 6.7% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.0% | Tragic 6.2% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 5.1% | Tragic 4.9% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Tragic 4.9% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Tragic 5.3% | Good 4.8% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Tragic 5.2% | Exceptional 4.3% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 5.8% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Seniors > 65 | Tragic 5.6% | Exceptional 4.4% |
Seniors > 75 | Fair 8.8% | Exceptional 7.3% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 8.7% | Tragic 9.0% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Tragic 9.3% | Exceptional 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Tragic 6.3% | Good 5.4% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.5% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 8.0%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 5.3%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (78.7% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (75.3% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 1.2%), in labor force | age 25-29 (83.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (83.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 2.2%).
Labor Participation Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Exceptional 65.6% | Tragic 62.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 78.7% | Tragic 76.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Tragic 35.5% | Exceptional 38.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Good 75.3% | Poor 74.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 83.7% | Tragic 81.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 83.7% | Tragic 81.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 83.0% | Tragic 80.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 81.2% | Tragic 79.0% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (12.2% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 16.8%), single mother households (7.7% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 8.8%), and currently married (42.9% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 8.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.2% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 1.3%), births to unmarried women (37.1% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 2.3%), and family households with children (28.9% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 2.4%).
Family Structure Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
Family Households | Exceptional 65.2% | Good 64.4% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.9% | Exceptional 28.2% |
Married-couple Households | Tragic 43.3% | Fair 45.9% |
Average Family Size | Exceptional 3.40 | Tragic 3.19 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 3.0% | Tragic 2.8% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.7% | Tragic 7.0% |
Currently Married | Tragic 42.9% | Average 46.6% |
Divorced or Separated | Fair 12.2% | Tragic 14.2% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 37.1% | Tragic 36.3% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.0% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 39.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.1% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 10.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (54.1% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.2% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 3.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.0% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 7.0%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (54.1% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 9.0%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
No Vehicles Available | Poor 11.0% | Exceptional 7.9% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Poor 89.2% | Exceptional 92.3% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 54.1% | Exceptional 59.0% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Excellent 20.1% | Exceptional 22.2% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.0% | Exceptional 7.4% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 104.2%), high school diploma (82.0% compared to 88.4%, a difference of 7.9%), and 10th grade (87.9% compared to 94.1%, a difference of 7.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of associate's degree (38.5% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.29%), nursery school (96.6% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 1.9%), and kindergarten (96.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 1.9%).
Education Level Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
No Schooling Completed | Tragic 3.5% | Exceptional 1.7% |
Nursery School | Tragic 96.6% | Exceptional 98.4% |
Kindergarten | Tragic 96.5% | Exceptional 98.4% |
1st Grade | Tragic 96.5% | Exceptional 98.3% |
2nd Grade | Tragic 96.3% | Exceptional 98.3% |
3rd Grade | Tragic 96.0% | Exceptional 98.2% |
4th Grade | Tragic 95.3% | Exceptional 98.0% |
5th Grade | Tragic 94.8% | Exceptional 97.9% |
6th Grade | Tragic 94.2% | Exceptional 97.6% |
7th Grade | Tragic 91.7% | Exceptional 96.7% |
8th Grade | Tragic 91.1% | Exceptional 96.4% |
9th Grade | Tragic 89.9% | Exceptional 95.5% |
10th Grade | Tragic 87.9% | Excellent 94.1% |
11th Grade | Tragic 86.4% | Fair 92.3% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 84.6% | Tragic 90.3% |
High School Diploma | Tragic 82.0% | Poor 88.4% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 78.5% | Tragic 83.8% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 56.8% | Tragic 60.4% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 53.3% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.5% | Tragic 38.6% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 31.0% | Tragic 30.4% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.7% | Tragic 11.4% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.5% | Tragic 3.4% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.4% | Tragic 1.5% |
Guatemalan vs Chickasaw Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Guatemalan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 59.2%), disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 42.1%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.4% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 41.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.8% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 4.2%), disability age over 75 (49.0% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 4.4%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 11.2%).
Disability Metric | Guatemalan | Chickasaw |
Disability | Good 11.6% | Tragic 15.2% |
Males | Good 11.1% | Tragic 15.1% |
Females | Good 12.1% | Tragic 15.2% |
Age | Under 5 years | Good 1.2% | Tragic 1.7% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Excellent 5.5% | Tragic 6.8% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Excellent 6.4% | Tragic 9.0% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Poor 11.7% | Tragic 16.1% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 25.5% | Tragic 30.2% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 49.0% | Tragic 51.2% |
Vision | Tragic 2.3% | Tragic 3.2% |
Hearing | Exceptional 2.8% | Tragic 4.5% |
Cognitive | Tragic 17.8% | Tragic 18.5% |
Ambulatory | Fair 6.2% | Tragic 8.0% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.6% | Tragic 2.9% |