Chickasaw vs Subsaharan African Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Subsaharan African
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Sub-Saharan Africans
10.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
256th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.9%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
258th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Subsaharan African Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,601,652 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.000 and weighted average of 10.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 506,098,570 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Sub-Saharan Africans and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.508 and weighted average of 10.9%, a difference of 0.070%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chickasaw | Subsaharan African |
| Minimum | 3.7% | 0.78% |
| Maximum | 33.3% | 62.5% |
| Range | 29.7% | 61.7% |
| Mean | 12.7% | 15.6% |
| Median | 12.0% | 11.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 9.8% | 9.4% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 14.5% | 18.4% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.7% | 9.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.3% | 11.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.2% | 11.0% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Sub-Saharan Africans by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ghana (10.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Mexican American Indian (10.9%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Liberia (10.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Bangladeshi (10.9%, a difference of 0.46%), and Shoshone (10.9%, a difference of 0.50%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Sub-Saharan Africans are Immigrants from Ghana (10.8%, a difference of 0.030%), Mexican American Indian (10.9%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Liberia (10.8%, a difference of 0.34%), Bangladeshi (10.9%, a difference of 0.39%), and Shoshone (10.9%, a difference of 0.42%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
| Liberians | 0.4 /100 | #247 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Nicaraguans | 0.4 /100 | #248 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Cubans | 0.4 /100 | #249 | Tragic 10.6% |
| Salvadorans | 0.3 /100 | #250 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Iroquois | 0.3 /100 | #251 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Zaire | 0.3 /100 | #252 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Western Africa | 0.3 /100 | #253 | Tragic 10.7% |
| Ecuadorians | 0.2 /100 | #254 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Immigrants | Liberia | 0.2 /100 | #255 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Chickasaw | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Immigrants | Ghana | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 10.8% |
| Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Bangladeshis | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Shoshone | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Spanish American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #262 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Immigrants | Trinidad and Tobago | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 10.9% |
| Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 11.0% |
| Comanche | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 11.0% |