Demographics details for Keiser, AR vs Central point, OR
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Keiser, AR vs Central point, OR.
| Data | Keiser | Central point |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 713 | 19,222 |
| Median Age | 41.6 years | 40.3 years |
| Median Income | $50,136 | $79,731 |
| Married Families | 35.0% | 45.0% |
| Poverty Level | 12% | 10% |
| Unemployment Rate | 3.5 | 4.5 |
Population Comparison: Keiser vs Central point
- The population in Central point is higher at 19,222, compared to 713 in Keiser.
- Residents in Keiser have a higher median age of 41.6 years compared to 40.3 years in Central point.
- Central point has a higher median income of $79,731, compared to $50,136 in Keiser.
- In Central point, the percentage of married families is higher at 45.0%, compared to 35.0% in Keiser.
- Keiser has a higher poverty level at 12% compared to 10% in Central point.
- Central point has a higher unemployment rate at 4.5% compared to 3.5% in Keiser.
Demographics
Demographics Keiser vs Central point provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Keiser | Central point |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 4 | Data is updating |
| White | 83 | 76 |
| Asian | Data is updating | 1 |
| Hispanic | 1 | 15 |
| Two or More Races | 12 | 7 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Keiser vs Central point
- A higher percentage of Black residents are in Keiser at 4% compared to 0% in Central point.
- Keiser has a higher percentage of White residents at 83% compared to 76% in Central point.
- In Central point, the Asian population stands at 1%, greater than 0% in Keiser.
- Central point has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 15%, compared to 1% in Keiser.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Keiser at 12% compared to 7% in Central point.
- In Central point, the percentage of American Indian residents is higher at 1%, compared to 0% in Keiser.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Keiser | Central point |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 20.3% | 19.4% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 14.6% | 12.0% |
| Depression | 28.9% | 29.4% |
| Smoking | 24.9% | 16.7% |
| Binge Drinking | 15.2% | 16.5% |
| Obesity | 34.9% | 30.1% |
| Disability Percentage | 27.0% | 11.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Keiser vs Central point
- More residents in Keiser report poor mental health at 20.3% compared to 19.4% in Central point.
- Higher depression rates are seen in Central point at 29.4% versus 28.9% in Keiser.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Keiser at 24.9% compared to 16.7% in Central point.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Central point at 16.5% compared to 15.2% in Keiser.
- Obesity rates are higher in Keiser at 34.9% compared to 30.1% in Central point.
- Disability percentages are higher in Keiser at 27.0% compared to 11.0% in Central point.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Keiser | Central point |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 6.2% (44) | 1.7% (319) |
| High School Diploma | 15.0% (107) | 16.1% (3,095) |
| Less than High School | 55.5% (396) | 13.2% (2,530) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 7.3% (52) | 15.6% (3,003) |
Education Levels Comparison: Keiser vs Central point
- A higher percentage of residents in Keiser have no formal schooling at 6.2% compared to 1.7% in Central point.
- In Central point, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 16.1% compared to 15.0% in Keiser.
- More residents in Keiser have less than a high school education at 55.5% compared to 13.2% in Central point.
- In Central point, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 15.6% compared to 7.3% in Keiser.
Crime and Safety
Understanding crime rates and safety measures is crucial for assessing the livability of a city or town. Crime levels can vary significantly from one neighborhood to another, influenced by various factors such as population density and local amenities. For instance, areas with high foot traffic, like train stations, might experience different crime dynamics compared to quieter residential neighborhoods. Evaluating these patterns helps in making informed decisions about safety and community well-being.