Immigrants from Middle Africa vs French Canadian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 194,118,830 people shows no correlation between the proportion of French Canadians within Immigrant from Middle Africa communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.049. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Middle Africa within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.017% in French Canadians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Middle Africa corresponds to a decrease of 16.6 French Canadians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.4% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 25.5%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,254 compared to $93,694, a difference of 13.9%), and median male earnings ($49,201 compared to $54,722, a difference of 11.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($58,375 compared to $57,975, a difference of 0.69%), median female earnings ($37,965 compared to $38,436, a difference of 1.2%), and median earnings ($43,416 compared to $46,026, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 27.0%), family poverty (10.1% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 24.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (19.0% compared to 15.6%, a difference of 22.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single female poverty (22.3% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 0.58%), single mother poverty (30.3% compared to 30.8%, a difference of 1.6%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (14.8% compared to 14.3%, a difference of 3.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.3% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 34.7%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.1% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 12.8%), and female unemployment (5.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 11.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.61%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 0.85%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.1% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (39.9% compared to 43.6%, a difference of 9.1%), in labor force | age > 16 (67.7% compared to 64.0%, a difference of 5.9%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (76.6% compared to 78.1%, a difference of 1.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.17%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.2% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.45%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.9% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 0.65%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.7% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 27.8%), married-couple households (41.8% compared to 47.5%, a difference of 13.7%), and currently married (43.0% compared to 48.0%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (12.7% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 1.5%), births to unmarried women (34.9% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 1.6%), and family households (61.9% compared to 63.7%, a difference of 2.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.2% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 29.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 14.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 12.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.9% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 2.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (53.4% compared to 58.9%, a difference of 10.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 12.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.4% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 60.3%), doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 6.1%), and professional degree (4.2% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 4.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (58.0% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 0.26%), associate's degree (44.7% compared to 44.9%, a difference of 0.38%), and college, under 1 year (63.9% compared to 64.2%, a difference of 0.57%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 56.2%), hearing disability (2.8% compared to 3.8%, a difference of 38.0%), and male disability (11.1% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 19.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (47.1% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 0.31%), disability age 65 to 74 (24.1% compared to 23.7%, a difference of 1.7%), and vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 3.9%).