Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Tohono O'odham
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Latvian
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

Latvians

Tragic
Exceptional
686
SOCIAL INDEX
4.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
339th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Latvian Integration in Tohono O'odham Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 45,619,023 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Tohono O'odham communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.006. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Tohono O'odham within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Tohono O'odham corresponds to an increase of 0.2 Latvians.
Tohono O'odham Integration in Latvian Communities

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,256 compared to $52,649, a difference of 74.0%), median family income ($72,193 compared to $120,301, a difference of 66.6%), and median male earnings ($39,543 compared to $63,498, a difference of 60.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($45,248 compared to $52,783, a difference of 16.7%), wage/income gap (22.1% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 25.9%), and median female earnings ($33,205 compared to $43,941, a difference of 32.3%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Income
Income MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$30,256
Exceptional
$52,649
Median Family Income
Tragic
$72,193
Exceptional
$120,301
Median Household Income
Tragic
$61,663
Exceptional
$97,311
Median Earnings
Tragic
$36,349
Exceptional
$53,001
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$39,543
Exceptional
$63,498
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,205
Exceptional
$43,941
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,248
Excellent
$52,783
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$69,068
Exceptional
$108,926
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$73,774
Exceptional
$115,957
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$49,121
Exceptional
$67,326
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.1%
Tragic
27.9%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (20.4% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 188.1%), married-couple family poverty (11.2% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 187.8%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (31.7% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 140.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (22.0% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 33.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (31.0% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 59.2%), and single mother poverty (43.0% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 60.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Poverty
Poverty MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
Poverty
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
10.5%
Families
Tragic
20.4%
Exceptional
7.1%
Males
Tragic
22.9%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
11.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
31.0%
Exceptional
19.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
24.7%
Exceptional
11.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
29.5%
Exceptional
14.5%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
31.7%
Exceptional
13.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
13.4%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
13.5%
Single Males
Tragic
21.6%
Good
12.7%
Single Females
Tragic
34.2%
Exceptional
19.0%
Single Fathers
Tragic
22.0%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
43.0%
Exceptional
26.9%
Married Couples
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
20.8%
Exceptional
9.5%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
19.1%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
9.1%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in male unemployment (10.2% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 109.8%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (8.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 101.7%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (9.3% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 101.1%). 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 3.7%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 16.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (10.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 24.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
Unemployment
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Tragic
7.7%
Exceptional
4.7%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.8%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
22.1%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.5%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
9.8%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
8.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
9.3%
Exceptional
4.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.0%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.8%
Excellent
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.7%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
4.9%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.3% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 24.3%), in labor force | age 35-44 (74.1% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 15.2%), and in labor force | age > 16 (57.2% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 14.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (77.7% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 10.7%), in labor force | age 20-24 (68.6% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 10.9%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (77.5% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 11.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
57.2%
Excellent
65.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
70.4%
Exceptional
80.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.3%
Exceptional
38.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
68.6%
Exceptional
76.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
77.7%
Exceptional
86.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
74.1%
Exceptional
85.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
75.1%
Exceptional
83.8%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 90.6%), births to unmarried women (49.8% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 79.8%), and single mother households (9.1% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 72.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (12.0% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 3.5%), family households with children (28.0% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 5.9%), and family households (67.1% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 7.0%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
Family Households
Exceptional
67.1%
Tragic
62.8%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.0%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
37.9%
Exceptional
47.9%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.53
Tragic
3.11
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.8%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
9.1%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Tragic
36.8%
Exceptional
48.5%
Divorced or Separated
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
49.8%
Exceptional
27.7%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.6% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 59.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (50.0% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 12.5%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (18.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 2.3%), 1 or more vehicles in household (84.7% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 6.7%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 8.3%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
15.6%
Excellent
9.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
84.7%
Excellent
90.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
50.0%
Excellent
56.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Poor
18.9%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Fair
6.1%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (2.8% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 119.4%), master's degree (9.7% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 104.2%), and bachelor's degree (24.4% compared to 46.1%, a difference of 88.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.65%), kindergarten (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.65%), and 1st grade (97.8% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.66%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Education Level
Education Level MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Poor
97.6%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.5%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.0%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.5%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Tragic
92.6%
Exceptional
96.4%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.1%
Exceptional
95.6%
11th Grade
Tragic
87.6%
Exceptional
94.7%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
82.1%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
89.2%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
52.8%
Exceptional
71.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
47.1%
Exceptional
66.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
31.8%
Exceptional
53.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
46.1%
Master's Degree
Tragic
9.7%
Exceptional
19.8%
Professional Degree
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
6.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.6%

Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (36.0% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 69.8%), disability age under 5 (2.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 66.7%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.7% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 64.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (7.3% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 6.6%), cognitive disability (19.3% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 15.8%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.5% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 20.7%).
Tohono O'odham vs Latvian Disability
Disability MetricTohono O'odhamLatvian
Disability
Tragic
14.8%
Excellent
11.4%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
2.2%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.3%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
36.0%
Exceptional
21.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
56.7%
Exceptional
45.1%
Vision
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.2%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
19.3%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.7%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
2.3%