Demographics details for Fancy farm, KY vs Moorpark, CA
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Fancy farm, KY vs Moorpark, CA.
| Data | Fancy farm | Moorpark |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 300 | 35,514 |
| Median Age | 51.1 years | 38.8 years |
| Median Income | $55,060 | $143,218 |
| Married Families | 31.0% | 47.0% |
| Poverty Level | 10% | 8% |
| Unemployment Rate | 3.2 | 4.1 |
Population Comparison: Fancy farm vs Moorpark
- The population in Moorpark is higher at 35,514, compared to 300 in Fancy farm.
- Residents in Fancy farm have a higher median age of 51.1 years compared to 38.8 years in Moorpark.
- Moorpark has a higher median income of $143,218, compared to $55,060 in Fancy farm.
- In Moorpark, the percentage of married families is higher at 47.0%, compared to 31.0% in Fancy farm.
- Fancy farm has a higher poverty level at 10% compared to 8% in Moorpark.
- Moorpark has a higher unemployment rate at 4.1% compared to 3.2% in Fancy farm.
Demographics
Demographics Fancy farm vs Moorpark provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Fancy farm | Moorpark |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 3 | 3 |
| White | 91 | 38 |
| Asian | Data is updating | 7 |
| Hispanic | Data is updating | 34 |
| Two or More Races | 6 | 17 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Fancy farm vs Moorpark
- The percentage of Black residents is the same in both Fancy farm and Moorpark at 3%.
- Fancy farm has a higher percentage of White residents at 91% compared to 38% in Moorpark.
- In Moorpark, the Asian population stands at 7%, greater than 0% in Fancy farm.
- Moorpark has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 34%, compared to 0% in Fancy farm.
- The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races is higher in Moorpark at 17%, compared to 6% in Fancy farm.
- In Moorpark, the percentage of American Indian residents is higher at 1%, compared to 0% in Fancy farm.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Fancy farm | Moorpark |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 17.9% | 13.8% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 12.6% | 8.9% |
| Depression | 27.3% | 17.6% |
| Smoking | 20.6% | 9.2% |
| Binge Drinking | 16.7% | 17.8% |
| Obesity | 37.4% | 24.7% |
| Disability Percentage | 14.0% | 10.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Fancy farm vs Moorpark
- More residents in Fancy farm report poor mental health at 17.9% compared to 13.8% in Moorpark.
- Depression is more prevalent in Fancy farm at 27.3% compared to 17.6% in Moorpark.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Fancy farm at 20.6% compared to 9.2% in Moorpark.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Moorpark at 17.8% compared to 16.7% in Fancy farm.
- Obesity rates are higher in Fancy farm at 37.4% compared to 24.7% in Moorpark.
- Disability percentages are higher in Fancy farm at 14.0% compared to 10.0% in Moorpark.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Fancy farm | Moorpark |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.0% (Data is updating) | 0.8% (300) |
| High School Diploma | 47.7% (143) | 9.3% (3,304) |
| Less than High School | 5.3% (16) | 11.8% (4,201) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 14.3% (43) | 30.1% (10,699) |
Education Levels Comparison: Fancy farm vs Moorpark
- In Moorpark, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 0.8% compared to 0.0% in Fancy farm.
- A higher percentage of residents in Fancy farm hold a high school diploma at 47.7% compared to 9.3% in Moorpark.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Moorpark at 11.8%, compared to 5.3% in Fancy farm.
- In Moorpark, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 30.1% compared to 14.3% in Fancy farm.
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.