Chickasaw vs Liberian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Liberian
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Chickasaw
Liberians
19.6%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
262nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
19.9%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
269th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Liberian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,952,830 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.542 and weighted average of 19.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 117,670,688 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Liberians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.487 and weighted average of 19.9%, a difference of 1.3%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chickasaw | Liberian |
Minimum | 3.8% | 0.32% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Range | 96.2% | 99.7% |
Mean | 26.8% | 21.9% |
Median | 21.7% | 19.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 17.6% | 14.0% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 31.3% | 24.3% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 13.6% | 10.3% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 15.5% | 16.2% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 15.4% | 16.1% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Liberians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar (19.7%, a difference of 0.12%), Jamaican (19.7%, a difference of 0.23%), Vietnamese (19.5%, a difference of 0.52%), Mexican American Indian (19.5%, a difference of 0.61%), and Immigrants from Jamaica (19.8%, a difference of 0.67%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Liberians are Spanish American Indian (19.9%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Bangladesh (19.9%, a difference of 0.14%), Cherokee (19.9%, a difference of 0.18%), Immigrants from Barbados (19.9%, a difference of 0.29%), and Spanish American (19.8%, a difference of 0.35%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.3 /100 | #255 | Tragic 19.3% |
Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 19.3% |
Guyanese | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 19.4% |
Salvadorans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 19.4% |
Ottawa | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 19.4% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 19.5% |
Vietnamese | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 19.5% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 19.6% |
Immigrants | Burma/Myanmar | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 19.7% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 19.7% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 19.8% |
Spanish Americans | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 19.8% |
Immigrants | Bangladesh | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 19.9% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 19.9% |
Liberians | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 19.9% |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 19.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 19.9% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #272 | Tragic 20.0% |
Bangladeshis | 0.1 /100 | #273 | Tragic 20.0% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 20.1% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 20.1% |