Demographics details for Dearborn, MI vs Forest, MS
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Dearborn, MI vs Forest, MS.
| Data | Dearborn | Forest |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 107,710 | 5,330 |
| Median Age | 32.3 years | 36.4 years |
| Median Income | $64,600 | $50,093 |
| Married Families | 38.0% | 35.0% |
| Poverty Level | 12% | 18% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.1 | 4.5 |
Population Comparison: Dearborn vs Forest
- In Dearborn, the population is higher at 107,710, compared to 5,330 in Forest.
- The median age in Forest is higher at 36.4 years, compared to 32.3 years in Dearborn.
- Dearborn has a higher median income of $64,600 compared to $50,093 in Forest.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Dearborn at 38.0% compared to 35.0% in Forest.
- The poverty level is higher in Forest at 18%, compared to 12% in Dearborn.
- Forest has a higher unemployment rate at 4.5% compared to 4.1% in Dearborn.
Demographics
Demographics Dearborn vs Forest provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Dearborn | Forest |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 3 | 43 |
| White | 86 | 24 |
| Asian | 3 | Data is updating |
| Hispanic | 3 | 30 |
| Two or More Races | 5 | 3 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Dearborn vs Forest
- In Forest, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 43% compared to 3% in Dearborn.
- Dearborn has a higher percentage of White residents at 86% compared to 24% in Forest.
- The Asian population is larger in Dearborn at 3% compared to 0% in Forest.
- Forest has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 30%, compared to 3% in Dearborn.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Dearborn at 5% compared to 3% in Forest.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Dearborn and Forest at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Dearborn | Forest |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 19.4% | 18.9% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 13.7% | 16.8% |
| Depression | 26.6% | 21.2% |
| Smoking | 24.6% | 26.1% |
| Binge Drinking | 17.6% | 11.8% |
| Obesity | 34.2% | 45.7% |
| Disability Percentage | 11.0% | 20.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Dearborn vs Forest
- More residents in Dearborn report poor mental health at 19.4% compared to 18.9% in Forest.
- Depression is more prevalent in Dearborn at 26.6% compared to 21.2% in Forest.
- Forest has a higher smoking rate at 26.1% compared to 24.6% in Dearborn.
- Binge drinking is more common in Dearborn at 17.6% compared to 11.8% in Forest.
- Forest has higher obesity rates at 45.7% compared to 34.2% in Dearborn.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Forest at 20.0% compared to 11.0% in Dearborn.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Dearborn | Forest |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 2.8% (3,058) | 4.4% (232) |
| High School Diploma | 12.3% (13,249) | 10.5% (557) |
| Less than High School | 17.5% (18,849) | 33.4% (1,779) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 21.3% (22,938) | 8.5% (455) |
Education Levels Comparison: Dearborn vs Forest
- In Forest, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 4.4% compared to 2.8% in Dearborn.
- A higher percentage of residents in Dearborn hold a high school diploma at 12.3% compared to 10.5% in Forest.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Forest at 33.4%, compared to 17.5% in Dearborn.
- A higher percentage of residents in Dearborn hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 21.3% compared to 8.5% in 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.