Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Community Comparison
COMPARE
Immigrants from Guatemala
Chickasaw
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Immigrants from Guatemala
Chickasaw
1,504
SOCIAL INDEX
12.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
304th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Chickasaw Integration in Immigrants from Guatemala Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 127,229,746 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Immigrant from Guatemala communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.375. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Guatemala within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.014% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Guatemala corresponds to an increase of 14.5 Chickasaw.
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.5% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 21.0%), householder income under 25 years ($51,447 compared to $44,763, a difference of 14.9%), and median household income ($75,123 compared to $70,005, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($53,950 compared to $53,732, a difference of 0.41%), median earnings ($40,851 compared to $40,672, a difference of 0.44%), and median family income ($87,191 compared to $85,356, a difference of 2.1%).
Income Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $37,550 | Tragic $36,475 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $87,191 | Tragic $85,356 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $75,123 | Tragic $70,005 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,851 | Tragic $40,672 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $46,244 | Tragic $47,832 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $35,444 | Tragic $34,414 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Poor $51,447 | Tragic $44,763 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $81,341 | Tragic $77,929 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $86,573 | Tragic $82,193 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,950 | Tragic $53,732 |
Wage/Income Gap | Exceptional 22.5% | Tragic 27.2% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (13.8% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 29.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (15.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 29.3%), and married-couple family poverty (7.2% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 24.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (22.0% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 1.0%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (16.6% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 2.3%), and single mother poverty (33.3% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 3.4%).
Poverty Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
Poverty | Tragic 15.5% | Tragic 14.7% |
Families | Tragic 12.0% | Tragic 10.8% |
Males | Tragic 14.0% | Tragic 13.5% |
Females | Tragic 17.0% | Tragic 15.9% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 20.9% | Tragic 24.5% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 16.6% | Tragic 17.0% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 22.0% | Tragic 21.8% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 21.6% | Tragic 19.5% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 21.6% | Tragic 19.8% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 21.9% | Tragic 19.6% |
Single Males | Tragic 13.8% | Tragic 16.3% |
Single Females | Tragic 24.1% | Tragic 26.3% |
Single Fathers | Poor 16.6% | Tragic 19.0% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 33.3% | Tragic 34.4% |
Married Couples | Tragic 7.2% | Tragic 5.8% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Tragic 13.8% | Good 10.7% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Tragic 15.1% | Exceptional 11.6% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 14.6% | Tragic 13.1% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 27.6%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.9% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 24.7%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.3% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 21.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 3.1%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.6% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 3.7%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 4.7%).
Unemployment Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
Unemployment | Tragic 5.8% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Males | Tragic 5.6% | Excellent 5.2% |
Females | Tragic 6.1% | Excellent 5.1% |
Youth < 25 | Tragic 12.1% | Exceptional 11.2% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Tragic 18.7% | Exceptional 16.7% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Poor 10.5% | Exceptional 9.9% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Tragic 7.2% | Fair 6.7% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.0% | Tragic 6.2% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 5.2% | Tragic 4.9% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Tragic 4.9% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Tragic 5.3% | Good 4.8% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Tragic 5.3% | Exceptional 4.3% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 5.9% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Seniors > 65 | Tragic 5.6% | Exceptional 4.4% |
Seniors > 75 | Good 8.7% | Exceptional 7.3% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 8.6% | Tragic 9.0% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Tragic 9.4% | Exceptional 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Tragic 6.4% | Good 5.4% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.3% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 8.6%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 5.4%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (78.7% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (75.3% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 1.1%), in labor force | age 25-29 (83.6% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 2.1%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (83.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 2.2%).
Labor Participation Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Exceptional 65.6% | Tragic 62.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 78.7% | Tragic 76.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Tragic 35.3% | Exceptional 38.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Good 75.3% | Poor 74.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 83.6% | Tragic 81.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 83.7% | Tragic 81.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 82.9% | Tragic 80.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 81.1% | Tragic 79.0% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (12.2% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 16.6%), single mother households (7.7% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 9.8%), and currently married (42.6% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.0% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 1.0%), family households with children (28.8% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 2.1%), and births to unmarried women (37.5% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 3.3%).
Family Structure Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
Family Households | Exceptional 65.0% | Good 64.4% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.8% | Exceptional 28.2% |
Married-couple Households | Tragic 42.8% | Fair 45.9% |
Average Family Size | Exceptional 3.41 | Tragic 3.19 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 3.0% | Tragic 2.8% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.7% | Tragic 7.0% |
Currently Married | Tragic 42.6% | Average 46.6% |
Divorced or Separated | Fair 12.2% | Tragic 14.2% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 37.5% | Tragic 36.3% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.2% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 42.3%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.7% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 12.5%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.5% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 10.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.9% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 3.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 8.9%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.5% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 10.3%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
No Vehicles Available | Tragic 11.2% | Exceptional 7.9% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 88.9% | Exceptional 92.3% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 53.5% | Exceptional 59.0% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Good 19.7% | Exceptional 22.2% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 6.8% | Exceptional 7.4% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.6% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 111.1%), high school diploma (81.4% compared to 88.4%, a difference of 8.7%), and doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 8.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of bachelor's degree (30.8% compared to 30.4%, a difference of 1.2%), associate's degree (38.1% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 1.2%), and master's degree (11.6% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 1.8%).
Education Level Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
No Schooling Completed | Tragic 3.6% | Exceptional 1.7% |
Nursery School | Tragic 96.4% | Exceptional 98.4% |
Kindergarten | Tragic 96.4% | Exceptional 98.4% |
1st Grade | Tragic 96.4% | Exceptional 98.3% |
2nd Grade | Tragic 96.2% | Exceptional 98.3% |
3rd Grade | Tragic 95.8% | Exceptional 98.2% |
4th Grade | Tragic 95.1% | Exceptional 98.0% |
5th Grade | Tragic 94.6% | Exceptional 97.9% |
6th Grade | Tragic 93.9% | Exceptional 97.6% |
7th Grade | Tragic 91.3% | Exceptional 96.7% |
8th Grade | Tragic 90.7% | Exceptional 96.4% |
9th Grade | Tragic 89.4% | Exceptional 95.5% |
10th Grade | Tragic 87.4% | Excellent 94.1% |
11th Grade | Tragic 85.8% | Fair 92.3% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 84.0% | Tragic 90.3% |
High School Diploma | Tragic 81.4% | Poor 88.4% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 77.9% | Tragic 83.8% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 56.2% | Tragic 60.4% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 50.7% | Tragic 53.3% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.1% | Tragic 38.6% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.8% | Tragic 30.4% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.6% | Tragic 11.4% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 3.4% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.4% | Tragic 1.5% |
Immigrants from Guatemala vs Chickasaw Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 60.6%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 42.5%), and disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 42.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (49.1% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 4.2%), cognitive disability (17.7% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 4.2%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 10.9%).
Disability Metric | Immigrants from Guatemala | Chickasaw |
Disability | Good 11.6% | Tragic 15.2% |
Males | Good 11.0% | Tragic 15.1% |
Females | Good 12.1% | Tragic 15.2% |
Age | Under 5 years | Good 1.2% | Tragic 1.7% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Excellent 5.5% | Tragic 6.8% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Exceptional 6.3% | Tragic 9.0% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Poor 11.6% | Tragic 16.1% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 25.7% | Tragic 30.2% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 49.1% | Tragic 51.2% |
Vision | Tragic 2.4% | Tragic 3.2% |
Hearing | Exceptional 2.8% | Tragic 4.5% |
Cognitive | Tragic 17.7% | Tragic 18.5% |
Ambulatory | Fair 6.2% | Tragic 8.0% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.6% | Tragic 2.9% |