Tohono O'odham vs Romanian 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)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-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
Romanian
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

Romanians

Tragic
Excellent
686
SOCIAL INDEX
4.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
339th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,022
SOCIAL INDEX
87.7/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
35th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Romanian Integration in Tohono O'odham Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 54,425,746 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Romanians within Tohono O'odham communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.650. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Tohono O'odham within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.025% in Romanians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Tohono O'odham corresponds to an increase of 25.1 Romanians.
Tohono O'odham Integration in Romanian Communities

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,256 compared to $48,445, a difference of 60.1%), median family income ($72,193 compared to $111,243, a difference of 54.1%), and median male earnings ($39,543 compared to $60,063, a difference of 51.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($45,248 compared to $53,632, a difference of 18.5%), median female earnings ($33,205 compared to $41,663, a difference of 25.5%), and wage/income gap (22.1% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 26.2%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Income
Income MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$30,256
Exceptional
$48,445
Median Family Income
Tragic
$72,193
Exceptional
$111,243
Median Household Income
Tragic
$61,663
Exceptional
$91,994
Median Earnings
Tragic
$36,349
Exceptional
$50,244
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$39,543
Exceptional
$60,063
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,205
Exceptional
$41,663
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,248
Exceptional
$53,632
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$69,068
Exceptional
$102,544
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$73,774
Exceptional
$108,609
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$49,121
Exceptional
$64,142
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.1%
Tragic
28.0%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (20.4% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 150.0%), married-couple family poverty (11.2% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 131.9%), and male poverty (22.9% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 119.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (22.0% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 33.0%), single mother poverty (43.0% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 54.5%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (31.0% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 63.3%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Poverty
Poverty MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
Poverty
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
11.4%
Families
Tragic
20.4%
Exceptional
8.2%
Males
Tragic
22.9%
Exceptional
10.5%
Females
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
12.5%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
31.0%
Exceptional
19.0%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
24.7%
Exceptional
12.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
29.5%
Exceptional
16.0%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
31.7%
Exceptional
14.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
15.0%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
15.0%
Single Males
Tragic
21.6%
Excellent
12.5%
Single Females
Tragic
34.2%
Exceptional
19.6%
Single Fathers
Tragic
22.0%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
43.0%
Exceptional
27.8%
Married Couples
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
20.8%
Exceptional
10.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
19.1%
Exceptional
11.6%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
10.4%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in male unemployment (10.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 98.3%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (9.3% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 96.4%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (8.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 87.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.0% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 6.3%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 15.7%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (13.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 20.4%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
Unemployment
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Tragic
10.2%
Excellent
5.1%
Females
Tragic
7.7%
Exceptional
5.0%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.8%
Excellent
11.4%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
22.1%
Good
17.3%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.5%
Excellent
10.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
12.1%
Good
6.6%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
9.8%
Excellent
5.3%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
8.4%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
9.3%
Excellent
4.7%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
5.0%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.8%
Poor
9.0%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
7.2%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.7%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
5.2%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.3% compared to 37.5%, a difference of 19.7%), in labor force | age 35-44 (74.1% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 14.0%), and in labor force | age > 16 (57.2% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 13.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (77.7% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 9.1%), in labor force | age 25-29 (77.5% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 9.5%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (68.6% compared to 75.5%, a difference of 10.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
57.2%
Fair
65.0%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
70.4%
Good
79.8%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.3%
Excellent
37.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
68.6%
Excellent
75.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
77.5%
Good
84.8%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
77.7%
Good
84.8%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
74.1%
Good
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
75.1%
Good
83.0%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.8% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 80.2%), births to unmarried women (49.8% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 73.4%), and single mother households (9.1% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 62.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.0% compared to 27.6%, a difference of 1.5%), divorced or separated (12.0% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 2.1%), and family households (67.1% compared to 64.5%, a difference of 4.0%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
Family Households
Exceptional
67.1%
Good
64.5%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.0%
Good
27.6%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
37.9%
Exceptional
48.4%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.53
Tragic
3.18
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.8%
Exceptional
2.1%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
9.1%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Tragic
36.8%
Exceptional
48.4%
Divorced or Separated
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
11.8%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
49.8%
Exceptional
28.7%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.6% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 42.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (50.0% compared to 55.5%, a difference of 11.0%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 7.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (18.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 2.4%), 1 or more vehicles in household (84.7% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 5.3%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 7.0%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
15.6%
Poor
10.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
84.7%
Poor
89.2%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
50.0%
Average
55.5%
3+ Vehicles Available
Poor
18.9%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Fair
6.2%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (2.8% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 85.6%), master's degree (9.7% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 76.9%), and bachelor's degree (24.4% compared to 41.6%, a difference of 70.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.9% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.38%), kindergarten (97.9% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.38%), and 1st grade (97.8% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.39%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Education Level
Education Level MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
1.8%
Nursery School
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.2%
2nd Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Poor
97.6%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.5%
Exceptional
97.5%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.0%
Exceptional
96.7%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.5%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Tragic
92.6%
Exceptional
95.7%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.1%
Exceptional
94.8%
11th Grade
Tragic
87.6%
Exceptional
93.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
92.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
82.1%
Exceptional
90.7%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
87.5%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
52.8%
Exceptional
68.2%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
47.1%
Exceptional
62.4%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
31.8%
Exceptional
49.7%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
41.6%
Master's Degree
Tragic
9.7%
Exceptional
17.2%
Professional Degree
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
5.3%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.1%

Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (2.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 71.6%), disability age 65 to 74 (36.0% compared to 22.1%, a difference of 63.3%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.7% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 57.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (7.3% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 9.7%), cognitive disability (19.3% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 16.2%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.5% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 20.5%).
Tohono O'odham vs Romanian Disability
Disability MetricTohono O'odhamRomanian
Disability
Tragic
14.8%
Good
11.6%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Average
11.2%
Females
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
11.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
2.2%
Fair
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.3%
Fair
6.6%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
36.0%
Exceptional
22.1%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
56.7%
Exceptional
46.2%
Vision
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.1%
Hearing
Tragic
4.2%
Poor
3.1%
Cognitive
Tragic
19.3%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.7%
Excellent
6.0%
Self-Care
Tragic
3.1%
Good
2.4%