Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Zimbabwean
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Zimbabweans
5.8%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
2.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
244th/ 347
METRIC RANK
4.1%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
21st/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,342,221 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.056 and weighted average of 5.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 69,119,087 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.075 and weighted average of 4.1%, a difference of 41.9%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Zimbabwean |
| Minimum | 1.7% | 1.0% |
| Maximum | 17.6% | 6.9% |
| Range | 16.0% | 5.9% |
| Mean | 7.8% | 3.4% |
| Median | 7.0% | 3.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.5% | 2.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.6% | 4.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.1% | 2.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.4% | 1.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.3% | 1.5% |
Similar Demographics by Married-Couple Family Poverty
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Somali (5.8%, a difference of 0.010%), Immigrants from Afghanistan (5.8%, a difference of 0.15%), Immigrants from Western Africa (5.8%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Panama (5.8%, a difference of 0.26%), and Fijian (5.8%, a difference of 0.28%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | South America | 3.1 /100 | #237 | Tragic 5.7% |
| Cherokee | 2.7 /100 | #238 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Venezuelans | 2.7 /100 | #239 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Fijians | 2.5 /100 | #240 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Panama | 2.5 /100 | #241 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Western Africa | 2.4 /100 | #242 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Somalis | 2.3 /100 | #243 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Chickasaw | 2.3 /100 | #244 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Afghanistan | 2.1 /100 | #245 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Immigrants | Venezuela | 1.8 /100 | #246 | Tragic 5.8% |
| Iraqis | 1.4 /100 | #247 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Cree | 1.2 /100 | #248 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Tsimshian | 1.1 /100 | #249 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Immigrants | Eritrea | 1.1 /100 | #250 | Tragic 5.9% |
| Immigrants | Ghana | 1.0 /100 | #251 | Tragic 5.9% |
Demographics Similar to Zimbabweans by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Zimbabweans are Maltese (4.1%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Ireland (4.1%, a difference of 0.27%), Immigrants from Singapore (4.1%, a difference of 0.37%), Bhutanese (4.1%, a difference of 0.39%), and Eastern European (4.1%, a difference of 0.62%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
| Slovaks | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Poles | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Germans | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Italians | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 4.0% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Zimbabweans | 99.9 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Immigrants | Singapore | 99.9 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.9 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 99.9 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Cypriots | 99.9 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Danes | 99.9 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 4.1% |
| Scandinavians | 99.9 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 4.1% |