Pima vs Choctaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 56,682,137 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Choctaw within Pima communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.103. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.022% in Choctaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Pima corresponds to a decrease of 22.4 Choctaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (21.1% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 33.3%), per capita income ($30,644 compared to $35,999, a difference of 17.5%), and householder income under 25 years ($51,503 compared to $45,450, a difference of 13.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($35,326 compared to $33,775, a difference of 4.6%), householder income over 65 years ($50,539 compared to $53,060, a difference of 5.0%), and median earnings ($38,285 compared to $40,270, a difference of 5.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (23.9% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 90.6%), married-couple family poverty (11.4% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 81.2%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (19.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 74.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (38.6% compared to 36.4%, a difference of 6.0%), single female poverty (30.3% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 11.5%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (27.4% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 16.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (11.8% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 121.6%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (11.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 98.8%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (18.9% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 90.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.39%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.2% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 4.6%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (23.1% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 22.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.1% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 11.4%), in labor force | age 20-64 (69.0% compared to 75.4%, a difference of 9.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (74.3% compared to 81.0%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (79.0% compared to 81.4%, a difference of 3.0%), in labor force | age > 16 (57.4% compared to 61.5%, a difference of 7.0%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (72.8% compared to 78.2%, a difference of 7.3%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (4.2% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 53.9%), births to unmarried women (51.5% compared to 36.9%, a difference of 39.6%), and married-couple households (35.6% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 29.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.9% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 1.7%), family households with children (27.1% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 3.5%), and divorced or separated (12.9% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 9.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 79.2%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.0% compared to 59.3%, a difference of 13.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 92.2%, a difference of 6.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 0.92%), 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 4.4%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 92.2%, a difference of 6.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (23.2% compared to 29.4%, a difference of 26.8%), associate's degree (30.2% compared to 37.8%, a difference of 25.0%), and master's degree (9.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 19.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.030%), 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.030%), and 2nd grade (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.030%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Pima and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 76.5%), disability age 65 to 74 (38.6% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 27.9%), and hearing disability (3.7% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 22.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ambulatory disability (8.2% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 0.83%), vision disability (3.3% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 1.1%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 1.7%).