Demographics details for Ephrata, WA vs Washington, DC
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Ephrata, WA vs Washington, DC.
| Data | Ephrata | Washington |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 8,476 | 671,803 |
| Median Age | 33.4 years | 34.8 years |
| Median Income | $57,958 | $101,722 |
| Married Families | 33.0% | 26.0% |
| Poverty Level | 11% | 18% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.2 | 6.3 |
Population Comparison: Ephrata vs Washington
- The population in Washington is higher at 671,803, compared to 8,476 in Ephrata.
- The median age in Washington is higher at 34.8 years, compared to 33.4 years in Ephrata.
- Washington has a higher median income of $101,722, compared to $57,958 in Ephrata.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Ephrata at 33.0% compared to 26.0% in Washington.
- The poverty level is higher in Washington at 18%, compared to 11% in Ephrata.
- Washington has a higher unemployment rate at 6.3% compared to 4.2% in Ephrata.
Demographics
Demographics Ephrata vs Washington provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Ephrata | Washington |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 1 | 44 |
| White | 63 | 34 |
| Asian | Data is updating | 4 |
| Hispanic | 25 | 11 |
| Two or More Races | 11 | 7 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Ephrata vs Washington
- In Washington, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 44% compared to 1% in Ephrata.
- Ephrata has a higher percentage of White residents at 63% compared to 34% in Washington.
- In Washington, the Asian population stands at 4%, greater than 0% in Ephrata.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Ephrata at 25% compared to 11% in Washington.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Ephrata at 11% compared to 7% in Washington.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Ephrata and Washington at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Ephrata | Washington |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 18.0% | 14.0% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 12.7% | 8.6% |
| Depression | 27.0% | 20.1% |
| Smoking | 17.0% | 12.4% |
| Binge Drinking | 17.6% | 20.7% |
| Obesity | 35.1% | 25.6% |
| Disability Percentage | 8.0% | 11.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Ephrata vs Washington
- More residents in Ephrata report poor mental health at 18.0% compared to 14.0% in Washington.
- Depression is more prevalent in Ephrata at 27.0% compared to 20.1% in Washington.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Ephrata at 17.0% compared to 12.4% in Washington.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Washington at 20.7% compared to 17.6% in Ephrata.
- Obesity rates are higher in Ephrata at 35.1% compared to 25.6% in Washington.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Washington at 11.0% compared to 8.0% in Ephrata.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Ephrata | Washington |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.8% (65) | 0.9% (6,109) |
| High School Diploma | 17.7% (1,503) | 9.1% (61,269) |
| Less than High School | 14.4% (1,223) | 6.8% (45,577) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 8.0% (677) | 45.2% (303,532) |
Education Levels Comparison: Ephrata vs Washington
- In Washington, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 0.9% compared to 0.8% in Ephrata.
- A higher percentage of residents in Ephrata hold a high school diploma at 17.7% compared to 9.1% in Washington.
- More residents in Ephrata have less than a high school education at 14.4% compared to 6.8% in Washington.
- In Washington, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 45.2% compared to 8.0% in Ephrata.
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.