Demographics details for Cranston, RI vs Gilford, NH
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Cranston, RI vs Gilford, NH.
| Data | Cranston | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 82,421 | 7,194 |
| Median Age | 39.9 years | 47.5 years |
| Median Income | $83,123 | $75,964 |
| Married Families | 37.0% | 0.6% |
| Poverty Level | 8% | 6% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.5 | 2.2 |
Population Comparison: Cranston vs Gilford
- In Cranston, the population is higher at 82,421, compared to 7,194 in Gilford.
- The median age in Gilford is higher at 47.5 years, compared to 39.9 years in Cranston.
- Cranston has a higher median income of $83,123 compared to $75,964 in Gilford.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Cranston at 37.0% compared to 0.6% in Gilford.
- Cranston has a higher poverty level at 8% compared to 6% in Gilford.
- The unemployment rate in Cranston is higher at 4.5%, compared to 2.2% in Gilford.
Demographics
Demographics Cranston vs Gilford provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Cranston | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 5 | 0.5 |
| White | 61 | 96.2 |
| Asian | 7 | 0.7 |
| Hispanic | 18 | 1.6 |
| Two or More Races | 9 | 1.0 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Cranston vs Gilford
- A higher percentage of Black residents are in Cranston at 5% compared to 0.5% in Gilford.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Gilford at 96.2% compared to 61% in Cranston.
- The Asian population is larger in Cranston at 7% compared to 0.7% in Gilford.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Cranston at 18% compared to 1.6% in Gilford.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Cranston at 9% compared to 1.0% in Gilford.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Cranston and Gilford at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Cranston | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 15.1% | Data is updating% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 9.7% | Data is updating% |
| Depression | 24.9% | Data is updating% |
| Smoking | 13.5% | Data is updating% |
| Binge Drinking | 18.6% | Data is updating% |
| Obesity | 29.8% | Data is updating% |
| Disability Percentage | 12.0% | Data is updating% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Cranston vs Gilford
- More residents in Cranston report poor mental health at 15.1% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Depression is more prevalent in Cranston at 24.9% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Cranston at 13.5% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Binge drinking is more common in Cranston at 18.6% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Obesity rates are higher in Cranston at 29.8% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Disability percentages are higher in Cranston at 12.0% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Cranston | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 1.1% (930) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| High School Diploma | 16.1% (13,246) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| Less than High School | 13.4% (11,048) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 24.7% (20,330) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
Education Levels Comparison: Cranston vs Gilford
- A higher percentage of residents in Cranston have no formal schooling at 1.1% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- A higher percentage of residents in Cranston hold a high school diploma at 16.1% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- More residents in Cranston have less than a high school education at 13.4% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- A higher percentage of residents in Cranston hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 24.7% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
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.