Russian vs Houma Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 35,443,612 people shows a substantial negative correlation between the proportion of Houma within Russian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.594. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Russians within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.011% in Houma. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Russians corresponds to a decrease of 11.0 Houma.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,328 compared to $72,093, a difference of 61.4%), per capita income ($53,154 compared to $32,996, a difference of 61.1%), and median family income ($120,487 compared to $76,188, a difference of 58.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($54,389 compared to $44,356, a difference of 22.6%), median male earnings ($63,939 compared to $50,547, a difference of 26.5%), and median earnings ($53,334 compared to $38,949, a difference of 36.9%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.5% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 96.1%), child poverty among boys under 16 (13.8% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 90.3%), and single male poverty (12.5% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 88.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 34.1%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 39.5%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.0% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 47.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.5% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 75.6%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.8% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 41.9%), and male unemployment (5.1% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 39.5%). 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 0.47%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.9% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 2.7%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 7.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 74.1%, a difference of 12.6%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.0% compared to 72.7%, a difference of 10.0%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.9% compared to 59.5%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.8% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 1.6%), in labor force | age 16-19 (36.7% compared to 35.6%, a difference of 3.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.3% compared to 81.2%, a difference of 5.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (28.0% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 66.1%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 50.0%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 45.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.12 compared to 3.18, a difference of 1.8%), family households (63.4% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 3.7%), and currently married (48.6% compared to 45.5%, a difference of 6.6%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 21.7%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.8% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 17.3%), and no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 1.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 88.6%, a difference of 0.020%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.8% compared to 54.4%, a difference of 0.65%), and no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.3% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 185.7%), doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 166.3%), and master's degree (19.5% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 147.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.2% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.1%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.1%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 97.2%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Russian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 83.7%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 70.3%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.3% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 70.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.4% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 17.4%), disability age over 75 (45.5% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 23.4%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 24.0%).