Demographics details for Cherokee, OK vs Park forest, IL
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Cherokee, OK vs Park forest, IL.
| Data | Cherokee | Park forest |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 48,098 | 20,954 |
| Median Age | 36.5 years | 37.4 years |
| Median Income | $52,410 | $58,907 |
| Married Families | 38.0% | 25.0% |
| Poverty Level | 15% | 13% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.6 | 8.9 |
Population Comparison: Cherokee vs Park forest
- In Cherokee, the population is higher at 48,098, compared to 20,954 in Park forest.
- The median age in Park forest is higher at 37.4 years, compared to 36.5 years in Cherokee.
- Park forest has a higher median income of $58,907, compared to $52,410 in Cherokee.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Cherokee at 38.0% compared to 25.0% in Park forest.
- Cherokee has a higher poverty level at 15% compared to 13% in Park forest.
- Park forest has a higher unemployment rate at 8.9% compared to 4.6% in Cherokee.
Demographics
Demographics Cherokee vs Park forest provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Cherokee | Park forest |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 1 | 72 |
| White | 42 | 17 |
| Asian | 1 | Data is updating |
| Hispanic | 8 | 7 |
| Two or More Races | 15 | 3 |
| American Indian | 33 | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Cherokee vs Park forest
- In Park forest, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 72% compared to 1% in Cherokee.
- Cherokee has a higher percentage of White residents at 42% compared to 17% in Park forest.
- The Asian population is larger in Cherokee at 1% compared to 0% in Park forest.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Cherokee at 8% compared to 7% in Park forest.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Cherokee at 15% compared to 3% in Park forest.
- A greater percentage of American Indian residents live in Cherokee at 33% compared to 1% in Park forest.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Cherokee | Park forest |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 20.2% | 15.5% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 14.6% | 11.2% |
| Depression | 26.6% | 16.9% |
| Smoking | 23.2% | 15.9% |
| Binge Drinking | 13.8% | 15.8% |
| Obesity | 43.7% | 37.2% |
| Disability Percentage | 19.0% | 14.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Cherokee vs Park forest
- More residents in Cherokee report poor mental health at 20.2% compared to 15.5% in Park forest.
- Depression is more prevalent in Cherokee at 26.6% compared to 16.9% in Park forest.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Cherokee at 23.2% compared to 15.9% in Park forest.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Park forest at 15.8% compared to 13.8% in Cherokee.
- Obesity rates are higher in Cherokee at 43.7% compared to 37.2% in Park forest.
- Disability percentages are higher in Cherokee at 19.0% compared to 14.0% in Park forest.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Cherokee | Park forest |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.9% (433) | 2.4% (503) |
| High School Diploma | 15.6% (7,526) | 13.4% (2,802) |
| Less than High School | 11.5% (5,552) | 8.5% (1,787) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 17.9% (8,612) | 17.4% (3,650) |
Education Levels Comparison: Cherokee vs Park forest
- In Park forest, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 2.4% compared to 0.9% in Cherokee.
- A higher percentage of residents in Cherokee hold a high school diploma at 15.6% compared to 13.4% in Park forest.
- More residents in Cherokee have less than a high school education at 11.5% compared to 8.5% in Park forest.
- A higher percentage of residents in Cherokee hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 17.9% compared to 17.4% in Park forest.
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.