Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Female Poverty
COMPARE
Alaskan Athabascan
Chickasaw
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Alaskan Athabascans
Chickasaw
14.4%
FEMALE POVERTY
5.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
213th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.9%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Alaskan Athabascan vs Chickasaw Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 45,807,044 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Alaskan Athabascans and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.404 and weighted average of 14.4%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,289 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.004 and weighted average of 15.9%, a difference of 10.4%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Alaskan Athabascan | Chickasaw |
| Minimum | 0.78% | 1.9% |
| Maximum | 69.0% | 38.6% |
| Range | 68.2% | 36.7% |
| Mean | 21.7% | 18.1% |
| Median | 15.9% | 17.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 11.4% | 14.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 28.2% | 20.7% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 16.9% | 6.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 16.4% | 5.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 16.3% | 5.9% |
Similar Demographics by Female Poverty
Demographics Similar to Alaskan Athabascans by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Alaskan Athabascans are Bermudan (14.4%, a difference of 0.080%), Marshallese (14.4%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from Panama (14.4%, a difference of 0.30%), Immigrants from Thailand (14.4%, a difference of 0.39%), and Immigrants (14.4%, a difference of 0.42%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Immigrants | Uruguay | 14.0 /100 | #206 | Poor 14.0% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Africa | 9.0 /100 | #207 | Tragic 14.2% |
| Immigrants | Azores | 7.9 /100 | #208 | Tragic 14.2% |
| Panamanians | 7.7 /100 | #209 | Tragic 14.2% |
| Malaysians | 7.4 /100 | #210 | Tragic 14.3% |
| Moroccans | 7.2 /100 | #211 | Tragic 14.3% |
| Bermudans | 5.5 /100 | #212 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Alaskan Athabascans | 5.3 /100 | #213 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Marshallese | 5.0 /100 | #214 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Immigrants | Panama | 4.7 /100 | #215 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Immigrants | Thailand | 4.5 /100 | #216 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Immigrants | Immigrants | 4.5 /100 | #217 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Immigrants | Uzbekistan | 4.4 /100 | #218 | Tragic 14.4% |
| Japanese | 4.1 /100 | #219 | Tragic 14.5% |
| Alsatians | 4.0 /100 | #220 | Tragic 14.5% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Iroquois (15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.28%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.50%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
| Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
| Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
| Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
| Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
| Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
| Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
| Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |