Hungarian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Hungarian
Select to Compare
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Hungarian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
16.6%
POVERTY | GIRLS < 16
45.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
176th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Hungarian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 471,414,008 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Hungarians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.563 and weighted average of 16.6%. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Hungarians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.1% in poverty level among girls under the age of 16.
It is essential to understand that the correlation between the percentage of Hungarians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 does not imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship. It remains uncertain whether the presence of Hungarians influences an upward or downward trend in the level of poverty level among girls under the age of 16 within an area, or if Hungarians simply ended up residing in those areas with higher or lower levels of poverty level among girls under the age of 16 due to other factors.
Demographics Similar to Hungarians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Hungarians are Lebanese (16.6%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Western Asia (16.6%, a difference of 0.11%), White/Caucasian (16.6%, a difference of 0.17%), Hawaiian (16.6%, a difference of 0.20%), and Immigrants from Syria (16.6%, a difference of 0.21%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
| Costa Ricans | 64.2 /100 | #169 | Good 16.2% |
| Immigrants from Venezuela | 64.2 /100 | #170 | Good 16.2% |
| Immigrants from Saudi Arabia | 64.0 /100 | #171 | Good 16.2% |
| Afghans | 62.3 /100 | #172 | Good 16.2% |
| Immigrants from South America | 55.1 /100 | #173 | Average 16.4% |
| Ethiopians | 50.0 /100 | #174 | Average 16.5% |
| Lebanese | 45.4 /100 | #175 | Average 16.6% |
| Hungarians | 45.1 /100 | #176 | Average 16.6% |
| Immigrants from Western Asia | 44.1 /100 | #177 | Average 16.6% |
| Whites/Caucasians | 43.6 /100 | #178 | Average 16.6% |
| Hawaiians | 43.4 /100 | #179 | Average 16.6% |
| Immigrants from Syria | 43.3 /100 | #180 | Average 16.6% |
| Immigrants from Iraq | 43.2 /100 | #181 | Average 16.6% |
| Immigrants from Ethiopia | 43.1 /100 | #182 | Average 16.6% |
| Immigrants from Portugal | 42.5 /100 | #183 | Average 16.6% |
Hungarian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Hungarian Data | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Data |
| Minimum | 0.21% | 0.46% |
| Maximum | 53.8% | 100.0% |
| Range | 53.5% | 99.5% |
| Mean | 14.1% | 31.4% |
| Median | 11.0% | 20.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.3% | 13.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 19.4% | 46.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 14.1% | 32.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 12.3% | 24.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 12.2% | 24.3% |
Correlation Details
| Hungarian Percentile | Sample Size | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
[ 0.0% - 0.5% ] 0.21% | 350,841,564 | 17.6% |
[ 0.5% - 1.0% ] 0.68% | 81,703,180 | 13.6% |
[ 1.0% - 1.5% ] 1.20% | 20,134,442 | 13.4% |
[ 1.5% - 2.0% ] 1.73% | 7,879,093 | 14.6% |
[ 2.0% - 2.5% ] 2.23% | 3,619,095 | 14.3% |
[ 2.5% - 3.0% ] 2.76% | 1,956,278 | 14.7% |
[ 3.0% - 3.5% ] 3.25% | 1,625,158 | 16.7% |
[ 3.5% - 4.0% ] 3.77% | 1,193,064 | 16.8% |
[ 4.0% - 4.5% ] 4.25% | 820,155 | 16.4% |
[ 4.5% - 5.0% ] 4.74% | 391,851 | 10.7% |
[ 5.0% - 5.5% ] 5.28% | 404,331 | 27.8% |
[ 5.5% - 6.0% ] 5.78% | 97,278 | 17.8% |
[ 6.0% - 6.5% ] 6.21% | 127,386 | 28.4% |
[ 6.5% - 7.0% ] 6.78% | 95,930 | 12.1% |
[ 7.0% - 7.5% ] 7.13% | 52,732 | 10.4% |
[ 7.5% - 8.0% ] 7.74% | 51,348 | 30.5% |
[ 8.0% - 8.5% ] 8.22% | 35,093 | 6.3% |
[ 8.5% - 9.0% ] 8.68% | 15,254 | 34.1% |
[ 9.0% - 9.5% ] 9.18% | 7,938 | 45.7% |
[ 9.5% - 10.0% ] 9.73% | 4,687 | 20.1% |
[ 10.0% - 10.5% ] 10.44% | 2,597 | 26.4% |
[ 10.5% - 11.0% ] 10.96% | 52,752 | 39.9% |
[ 11.0% - 11.5% ] 11.35% | 13,186 | 1.6% |
[ 11.5% - 12.0% ] 11.65% | 10,955 | 2.8% |
[ 12.0% - 12.5% ] 12.05% | 73,863 | 35.1% |
[ 12.5% - 13.0% ] 12.82% | 78 | 20.0% |
[ 13.0% - 13.5% ] 13.09% | 191 | 13.3% |
[ 14.0% - 14.5% ] 14.04% | 178 | 17.6% |
[ 15.0% - 15.5% ] 15.12% | 172 | 100.0% |
[ 15.5% - 16.0% ] 15.85% | 164 | 100.0% |
[ 17.0% - 17.5% ] 17.14% | 48,083 | 47.6% |
[ 17.5% - 18.0% ] 17.96% | 802 | 0.46% |
[ 19.0% - 19.5% ] 19.42% | 1,792 | 7.3% |
[ 21.0% - 21.5% ] 21.35% | 28,287 | 51.8% |
[ 22.5% - 23.0% ] 22.53% | 7,385 | 39.9% |
[ 24.5% - 25.0% ] 24.64% | 63,011 | 39.4% |
[ 25.0% - 25.5% ] 25.30% | 5,501 | 68.7% |
[ 26.5% - 27.0% ] 26.60% | 188 | 69.6% |
[ 31.5% - 32.0% ] 31.96% | 3,858 | 63.4% |
[ 38.5% - 39.0% ] 38.95% | 9,578 | 64.8% |
[ 40.5% - 41.0% ] 40.81% | 34,395 | 46.3% |
[ 41.0% - 41.5% ] 41.06% | 962 | 60.7% |
[ 53.5% - 54.0% ] 53.76% | 173 | 50.0% |