Ute vs Lithuanian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
COMPARE
Ute
Lithuanian
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Comparison
Ute
Lithuanians
21.8%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
315th/ 347
METRIC RANK
13.9%
CHILD POVERTY AMONG GIRLS UNDER 16
99.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
37th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Ute vs Lithuanian Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 55,563,406 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Ute and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.294 and weighted average of 21.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 410,552,780 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Lithuanians and poverty level among girls under the age of 16 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.250 and weighted average of 13.9%, a difference of 57.3%.
Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 Correlation Summary
Measurement | Ute | Lithuanian |
Minimum | 9.6% | 0.39% |
Maximum | 100.0% | 78.0% |
Range | 90.4% | 77.7% |
Mean | 33.1% | 19.1% |
Median | 25.0% | 12.8% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 18.3% | 9.9% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 39.5% | 21.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 21.2% | 11.6% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 22.6% | 17.8% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 22.1% | 17.6% |
Similar Demographics by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
Demographics Similar to Ute by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Ute are Immigrants from Guatemala (21.9%, a difference of 0.27%), Arapaho (21.7%, a difference of 0.28%), Creek (21.7%, a difference of 0.29%), African (21.9%, a difference of 0.59%), and Immigrants from Mexico (21.6%, a difference of 0.80%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Houma | 0.0 /100 | #308 | Tragic 21.5% |
Bahamians | 0.0 /100 | #309 | Tragic 21.5% |
Immigrants | Somalia | 0.0 /100 | #310 | Tragic 21.6% |
Dutch West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #311 | Tragic 21.6% |
Immigrants | Mexico | 0.0 /100 | #312 | Tragic 21.6% |
Creek | 0.0 /100 | #313 | Tragic 21.7% |
Arapaho | 0.0 /100 | #314 | Tragic 21.7% |
Ute | 0.0 /100 | #315 | Tragic 21.8% |
Immigrants | Guatemala | 0.0 /100 | #316 | Tragic 21.9% |
Africans | 0.0 /100 | #317 | Tragic 21.9% |
Immigrants | Dominica | 0.0 /100 | #318 | Tragic 22.1% |
U.S. Virgin Islanders | 0.0 /100 | #319 | Tragic 22.1% |
Hondurans | 0.0 /100 | #320 | Tragic 22.2% |
Colville | 0.0 /100 | #321 | Tragic 22.5% |
Yakama | 0.0 /100 | #322 | Tragic 22.6% |
Demographics Similar to Lithuanians by Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16
In terms of child poverty among girls under 16, the demographic groups most similar to Lithuanians are Russian (13.9%, a difference of 0.020%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (13.8%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Moldova (13.9%, a difference of 0.30%), Immigrants from Australia (14.0%, a difference of 0.95%), and Immigrants from Sri Lanka (14.0%, a difference of 1.0%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Child Poverty Among Girls Under 16 |
Asians | 99.7 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Turks | 99.7 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Danes | 99.7 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Maltese | 99.7 /100 | #34 | Exceptional 13.7% |
Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #35 | Exceptional 13.8% |
Russians | 99.6 /100 | #36 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Lithuanians | 99.6 /100 | #37 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Immigrants | Moldova | 99.6 /100 | #38 | Exceptional 13.9% |
Immigrants | Australia | 99.5 /100 | #39 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Immigrants | Sri Lanka | 99.5 /100 | #40 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.5 /100 | #41 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Immigrants | Scotland | 99.4 /100 | #42 | Exceptional 14.0% |
Koreans | 99.4 /100 | #43 | Exceptional 14.1% |
Immigrants | Asia | 99.4 /100 | #44 | Exceptional 14.1% |