Immigrants from Central America vs Alaska Native Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 72,059,438 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Alaska Natives within Immigrant from Central America communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.041. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Central America within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Alaska Natives. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Central America corresponds to an increase of 0.2 Alaska Natives.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($53,420 compared to $60,748, a difference of 13.7%), per capita income ($34,974 compared to $39,558, a difference of 13.1%), and median female earnings ($33,953 compared to $38,202, a difference of 12.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (24.6% compared to 24.4%, a difference of 0.90%), householder income under 25 years ($51,022 compared to $54,000, a difference of 5.8%), and median household income ($74,217 compared to $79,509, a difference of 7.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (15.0% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 30.8%), child poverty among boys under 16 (21.3% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 26.4%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (13.6% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 25.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 25-34 year olds (16.6% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 1.2%), receiving food stamps (15.0% compared to 15.6%, a difference of 4.1%), and single female poverty (24.8% compared to 23.3%, a difference of 6.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.1% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 61.3%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.4% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 42.3%), and male unemployment (5.8% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 38.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.5% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 2.2%), female unemployment (6.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 6.5%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.9% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 8.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.0% compared to 39.1%, a difference of 11.8%), in labor force | age 45-54 (80.2% compared to 81.8%, a difference of 2.0%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (82.5% compared to 81.3%, a difference of 1.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.020%), in labor force | age 35-44 (82.0% compared to 81.6%, a difference of 0.44%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (77.7% compared to 77.0%, a difference of 0.87%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.0% compared to 3.5%, a difference of 16.7%), single mother households (8.1% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 8.9%), and family households (68.3% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 4.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (45.7% compared to 45.6%, a difference of 0.090%), births to unmarried women (37.4% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 2.3%), and divorced or separated (12.1% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 2.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.9% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 95.0%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.5% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 15.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.4% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.1% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 8.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.6% compared to 53.6%, a difference of 9.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.4% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 11.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.6% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 145.2%), doctorate degree (1.2% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 21.4%), and professional degree (2.9% compared to 3.5%, a difference of 20.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (96.4% compared to 98.8%, a difference of 2.4%), kindergarten (96.4% compared to 98.7%, a difference of 2.5%), and 1st grade (96.3% compared to 98.7%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Central America and Alaska Native communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 139.8%), hearing disability (3.0% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 52.0%), and disability age 35 to 64 (11.9% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 21.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ambulatory disability (6.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 0.69%), cognitive disability (17.7% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 1.1%), and disability age over 75 (50.5% compared to 52.8%, a difference of 4.5%).