Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Tohono O'odham
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Burmese
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-HaidaTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabwe
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Tohono O'odham

Burmese

Tragic
Exceptional
686
SOCIAL INDEX
4.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
339th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
10,002
SOCIAL INDEX
97.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
4th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Burmese Integration in Tohono O'odham Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 57,774,862 people shows a significant negative correlation between the proportion of Burmese within Tohono O'odham communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.676. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Tohono O'odham within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.193% in Burmese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Tohono O'odham corresponds to a decrease of 193.3 Burmese.
Tohono O'odham Integration in Burmese Communities

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,256 compared to $52,005, a difference of 71.9%), median family income ($72,193 compared to $123,369, a difference of 70.9%), and median household income ($61,663 compared to $103,145, a difference of 67.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($45,248 compared to $54,800, a difference of 21.1%), wage/income gap (22.1% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 26.5%), and median female earnings ($33,205 compared to $44,911, a difference of 35.2%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Income
Income MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$30,256
Exceptional
$52,005
Median Family Income
Tragic
$72,193
Exceptional
$123,369
Median Household Income
Tragic
$61,663
Exceptional
$103,145
Median Earnings
Tragic
$36,349
Exceptional
$54,559
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$39,543
Exceptional
$65,236
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,205
Exceptional
$44,911
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,248
Exceptional
$54,800
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$69,068
Exceptional
$113,701
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$73,774
Exceptional
$121,444
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$49,121
Exceptional
$71,139
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.1%
Tragic
28.0%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (20.4% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 178.5%), married-couple family poverty (11.2% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 159.8%), and receiving food stamps (21.5% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 148.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (22.0% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 42.3%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (19.1% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 63.9%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (31.0% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 64.0%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Poverty
Poverty MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
Poverty
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
10.7%
Families
Tragic
20.4%
Exceptional
7.3%
Males
Tragic
22.9%
Exceptional
9.7%
Females
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
11.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
31.0%
Exceptional
18.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
24.7%
Exceptional
11.2%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
29.5%
Exceptional
13.2%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
31.7%
Exceptional
12.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
13.0%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
13.0%
Single Males
Tragic
21.6%
Exceptional
11.7%
Single Females
Tragic
34.2%
Exceptional
18.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
22.0%
Exceptional
15.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
43.0%
Exceptional
26.2%
Married Couples
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
4.3%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
20.8%
Exceptional
10.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
19.1%
Excellent
11.7%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
8.6%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in male unemployment (10.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 107.1%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (9.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 105.2%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (8.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 95.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.0% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 3.9%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 15.4%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (13.8% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 21.3%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
Unemployment
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
4.9%
Males
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Tragic
7.7%
Exceptional
5.0%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.8%
Excellent
11.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
22.1%
Exceptional
17.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.5%
Excellent
10.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
9.8%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
8.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
9.3%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.0%
Excellent
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
5.0%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
8.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
6.5%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.7%
Exceptional
8.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
4.9%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (57.2% compared to 66.2%, a difference of 15.6%), in labor force | age 35-44 (74.1% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 14.3%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (70.4% compared to 80.3%, a difference of 14.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (68.6% compared to 73.6%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age 30-34 (77.7% compared to 85.3%, a difference of 9.7%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (77.5% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 9.9%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
57.2%
Exceptional
66.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
70.4%
Exceptional
80.3%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.3%
Tragic
34.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
68.6%
Tragic
73.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
77.7%
Exceptional
85.3%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
74.1%
Exceptional
84.7%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
75.1%
Exceptional
83.6%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (49.8% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 89.1%), single father households (3.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 88.0%), and single mother households (9.1% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 72.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.0% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 1.7%), family households (67.1% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 2.1%), and average family size (3.53 compared to 3.22, a difference of 9.8%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
Family Households
Exceptional
67.1%
Exceptional
65.7%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.0%
Exceptional
28.5%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
37.9%
Exceptional
49.8%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.53
Fair
3.22
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.8%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
9.1%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Tragic
36.8%
Exceptional
48.9%
Divorced or Separated
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
10.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
49.8%
Exceptional
26.4%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.6% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 61.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (50.0% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 15.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.9% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 9.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 3.0%), 1 or more vehicles in household (84.7% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 6.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.9% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 9.5%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
15.6%
Excellent
9.7%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
84.7%
Excellent
90.4%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
50.0%
Exceptional
57.8%
3+ Vehicles Available
Poor
18.9%
Exceptional
20.6%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Exceptional
6.8%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (2.8% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 115.9%), master's degree (9.7% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 103.0%), and bachelor's degree (24.4% compared to 46.9%, a difference of 92.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (97.9% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.20%), nursery school (97.9% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.21%), and 1st grade (97.8% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.21%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Education Level
Education Level MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Excellent
1.9%
Nursery School
Fair
97.9%
Excellent
98.1%
Kindergarten
Fair
97.9%
Excellent
98.1%
1st Grade
Fair
97.8%
Excellent
98.0%
2nd Grade
Fair
97.8%
Excellent
98.0%
3rd Grade
Poor
97.6%
Good
97.9%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Excellent
97.7%
5th Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Excellent
97.5%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.5%
Excellent
97.3%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.0%
Excellent
96.3%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.5%
Exceptional
96.1%
9th Grade
Tragic
92.6%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.1%
Exceptional
94.5%
11th Grade
Tragic
87.6%
Exceptional
93.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
92.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
82.1%
Exceptional
90.8%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
88.3%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
52.8%
Exceptional
71.9%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
47.1%
Exceptional
66.7%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
31.8%
Exceptional
54.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
46.9%
Master's Degree
Tragic
9.7%
Exceptional
19.7%
Professional Degree
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
6.1%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.6%

Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (2.2% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 94.8%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.7% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 81.8%), and disability age 65 to 74 (36.0% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 74.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (19.3% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 15.6%), disability age 18 to 34 (7.3% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 21.6%), and disability age over 75 (56.7% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 23.5%).
Tohono O'odham vs Burmese Disability
Disability MetricTohono O'odhamBurmese
Disability
Tragic
14.8%
Exceptional
10.4%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Exceptional
10.0%
Females
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
2.2%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.3%
Exceptional
6.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
36.0%
Exceptional
20.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
56.7%
Exceptional
45.9%
Vision
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
1.8%
Hearing
Tragic
4.2%
Exceptional
2.8%
Cognitive
Tragic
19.3%
Exceptional
16.7%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.7%
Exceptional
5.3%
Self-Care
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
2.3%