Houma vs Chippewa Community Comparison
COMPARE
Houma
Chippewa
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Houma
Chippewa
384
SOCIAL INDEX
1.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
346th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,429
SOCIAL INDEX
21.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
259th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Chippewa Integration in Houma Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 29,466,283 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Chippewa within Houma communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.399. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Houma within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.511% in Chippewa. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Houma corresponds to an increase of 511.2 Chippewa.
Houma vs Chippewa Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (38.7% compared to 25.0%, a difference of 54.8%), householder income over 65 years ($44,822 compared to $53,847, a difference of 20.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($72,093 compared to $83,943, a difference of 16.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median earnings ($38,949 compared to $40,287, a difference of 3.4%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,044 compared to $80,005, a difference of 3.8%), and householder income under 25 years ($44,356 compared to $47,015, a difference of 6.0%).
Income Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $32,996 | Tragic $36,631 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $76,188 | Tragic $86,852 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $62,575 | Tragic $70,539 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $38,949 | Tragic $40,287 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $50,547 | Tragic $46,368 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $30,343 | Tragic $35,003 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,356 | Tragic $47,015 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,044 | Tragic $80,005 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $72,093 | Tragic $83,943 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $44,822 | Tragic $53,847 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 38.7% | Excellent 25.0% |
Houma vs Chippewa Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (23.5% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 43.3%), single father poverty (26.7% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 42.2%), and family poverty (14.6% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 30.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (26.2% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 1.0%), child poverty under the age of 5 (22.7% compared to 23.4%, a difference of 3.0%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (21.5% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 4.1%).
Poverty Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
Poverty | Tragic 18.4% | Tragic 15.7% |
Families | Tragic 14.6% | Tragic 11.2% |
Males | Tragic 16.7% | Tragic 14.6% |
Females | Tragic 20.0% | Tragic 16.7% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 26.2% | Tragic 25.9% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 22.7% | Tragic 18.0% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 22.7% | Tragic 23.4% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 24.9% | Tragic 20.5% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 26.2% | Tragic 21.0% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 21.5% | Tragic 20.6% |
Single Males | Tragic 23.5% | Tragic 16.4% |
Single Females | Tragic 33.8% | Tragic 26.8% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 26.7% | Tragic 18.8% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 43.5% | Tragic 34.8% |
Married Couples | Tragic 6.4% | Poor 5.4% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Tragic 14.7% | Tragic 12.1% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Tragic 16.2% | Tragic 13.1% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 16.5% | Tragic 14.7% |
Houma vs Chippewa Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.4% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 41.8%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (7.8% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 25.9%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (21.6% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 20.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 0.56%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 1.9%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (13.8% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 2.2%).
Unemployment Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
Unemployment | Tragic 6.7% | Tragic 6.2% |
Males | Tragic 7.1% | Tragic 6.6% |
Females | Tragic 6.4% | Tragic 6.1% |
Youth < 25 | Tragic 13.8% | Tragic 13.5% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Tragic 21.6% | Poor 18.0% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Tragic 12.6% | Tragic 12.3% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Tragic 8.7% | Tragic 7.8% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 7.2% | Tragic 7.8% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 7.8% | Tragic 6.2% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Tragic 5.6% | Tragic 5.5% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Tragic 5.6% | Tragic 5.9% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Fair 4.9% | Poor 4.9% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 5.8% | Tragic 5.7% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.8% | Tragic 5.4% |
Seniors > 75 | Tragic 9.1% | Tragic 10.1% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.4% | Tragic 13.3% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Tragic 12.5% | Tragic 11.1% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Tragic 6.8% | Tragic 7.0% |
Houma vs Chippewa Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.6% compared to 43.8%, a difference of 23.0%), in labor force | age 45-54 (74.1% compared to 81.3%, a difference of 9.7%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (72.7% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 6.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (81.2% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 2.1%), in labor force | age 30-34 (79.9% compared to 82.6%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (79.5% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 4.3%).
Labor Participation Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 59.5% | Tragic 63.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 72.7% | Tragic 77.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Poor 35.6% | Exceptional 43.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Tragic 73.7% | Exceptional 77.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.2% | Tragic 82.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 79.9% | Tragic 82.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 79.5% | Tragic 82.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 74.1% | Tragic 81.3% |
Houma vs Chippewa Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (46.6% compared to 42.6%, a difference of 9.2%), family households with children (28.5% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 6.7%), and married-couple households (44.6% compared to 42.1%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother households (7.9% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 0.62%), average family size (3.18 compared to 3.20, a difference of 0.69%), and divorced or separated (13.6% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 3.3%).
Family Structure Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
Family Households | Exceptional 65.7% | Tragic 62.1% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.5% | Tragic 26.7% |
Married-couple Households | Tragic 44.6% | Tragic 42.1% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.18 | Poor 3.20 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.9% | Tragic 3.1% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.9% | Tragic 8.0% |
Currently Married | Tragic 45.5% | Tragic 43.2% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 13.6% | Tragic 13.2% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 46.6% | Tragic 42.6% |
Houma vs Chippewa Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (4.9% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 54.1%), 3 or more vehicles in household (16.1% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 34.0%), and no vehicles in household (11.5% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 21.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.6% compared to 90.7%, a difference of 2.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.4% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 5.1%), and no vehicles in household (11.5% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 21.3%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
No Vehicles Available | Tragic 11.5% | Exceptional 9.4% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 88.6% | Exceptional 90.7% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Poor 54.4% | Exceptional 57.2% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 16.1% | Exceptional 21.5% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 4.9% | Exceptional 7.6% |
Houma vs Chippewa Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.8% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 70.3%), doctorate degree (0.96% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 59.1%), and professional degree (2.2% compared to 3.5%, a difference of 56.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (97.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.3%), 2nd grade (97.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 1.3%), and 3rd grade (97.1% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 1.3%).
Education Level Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
No Schooling Completed | Tragic 2.8% | Exceptional 1.6% |
Nursery School | Tragic 97.3% | Exceptional 98.5% |
Kindergarten | Tragic 97.3% | Exceptional 98.5% |
1st Grade | Tragic 97.2% | Exceptional 98.5% |
2nd Grade | Tragic 97.2% | Exceptional 98.4% |
3rd Grade | Tragic 97.1% | Exceptional 98.4% |
4th Grade | Tragic 96.8% | Exceptional 98.2% |
5th Grade | Tragic 96.6% | Exceptional 98.1% |
6th Grade | Tragic 96.2% | Exceptional 97.9% |
7th Grade | Tragic 95.1% | Exceptional 97.3% |
8th Grade | Tragic 94.2% | Exceptional 97.1% |
9th Grade | Tragic 92.3% | Exceptional 96.1% |
10th Grade | Tragic 90.2% | Exceptional 95.0% |
11th Grade | Tragic 87.0% | Exceptional 93.5% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 83.7% | Good 91.5% |
High School Diploma | Tragic 81.5% | Excellent 89.7% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 75.0% | Fair 85.2% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 47.6% | Tragic 62.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 41.2% | Tragic 55.7% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 28.2% | Tragic 40.7% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 21.4% | Tragic 30.6% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 7.9% | Tragic 11.4% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 2.2% | Tragic 3.5% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 0.96% | Tragic 1.5% |
Houma vs Chippewa Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Houma and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 41.2%), ambulatory disability (9.3% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 31.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (9.1% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 27.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 0.69%), hearing disability (4.2% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 6.0%), and cognitive disability (19.3% compared to 18.1%, a difference of 6.5%).
Disability Metric | Houma | Chippewa |
Disability | Tragic 17.1% | Tragic 14.1% |
Males | Tragic 17.4% | Tragic 14.3% |
Females | Tragic 16.9% | Tragic 14.0% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.9% | Tragic 1.9% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 9.1% | Tragic 7.1% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.7% | Tragic 9.0% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 18.7% | Tragic 15.0% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 32.3% | Tragic 27.8% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 56.2% | Tragic 48.4% |
Vision | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 2.4% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.2% | Tragic 4.0% |
Cognitive | Tragic 19.3% | Tragic 18.1% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 9.3% | Tragic 7.1% |
Self-Care | Tragic 3.0% | Tragic 2.6% |