Demographics details for Forest, MS vs Provo, UT
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Forest, MS vs Provo, UT.
| Data | Forest | Provo |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 5,330 | 113,523 |
| Median Age | 36.4 years | 23.6 years |
| Median Income | $50,093 | $57,943 |
| Married Families | 35.0% | 36.0% |
| Poverty Level | 18% | 11% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.5 | 4.0 |
Population Comparison: Forest vs Provo
- The population in Provo is higher at 113,523, compared to 5,330 in Forest.
- Residents in Forest have a higher median age of 36.4 years compared to 23.6 years in Provo.
- Provo has a higher median income of $57,943, compared to $50,093 in Forest.
- In Provo, the percentage of married families is higher at 36.0%, compared to 35.0% in Forest.
- Forest has a higher poverty level at 18% compared to 11% in Provo.
- The unemployment rate in Forest is higher at 4.5%, compared to 4.0% in Provo.
Demographics
Demographics Forest vs Provo provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Forest | Provo |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 43 | 1 |
| White | 24 | 69 |
| Asian | Data is updating | 2 |
| Hispanic | 30 | 18 |
| Two or More Races | 3 | 9 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Forest vs Provo
- A higher percentage of Black residents are in Forest at 43% compared to 1% in Provo.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Provo at 69% compared to 24% in Forest.
- In Provo, the Asian population stands at 2%, greater than 0% in Forest.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Forest at 30% compared to 18% in Provo.
- The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races is higher in Provo at 9%, compared to 3% in Forest.
- In Provo, the percentage of American Indian residents is higher at 1%, compared to 0% in Forest.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Forest | Provo |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 18.9% | 16.3% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 16.8% | 12.0% |
| Depression | 21.2% | 24.5% |
| Smoking | 26.1% | 8.4% |
| Binge Drinking | 11.8% | 7.3% |
| Obesity | 45.7% | 33.5% |
| Disability Percentage | 20.0% | 10.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Forest vs Provo
- More residents in Forest report poor mental health at 18.9% compared to 16.3% in Provo.
- Higher depression rates are seen in Provo at 24.5% versus 21.2% in Forest.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Forest at 26.1% compared to 8.4% in Provo.
- Binge drinking is more common in Forest at 11.8% compared to 7.3% in Provo.
- Obesity rates are higher in Forest at 45.7% compared to 33.5% in Provo.
- Disability percentages are higher in Forest at 20.0% compared to 10.0% in Provo.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Forest | Provo |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 4.4% (232) | 0.6% (663) |
| High School Diploma | 10.5% (557) | 4.6% (5,209) |
| Less than High School | 33.4% (1,779) | 5.7% (6,435) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 8.5% (455) | 18.3% (20,752) |
Education Levels Comparison: Forest vs Provo
- A higher percentage of residents in Forest have no formal schooling at 4.4% compared to 0.6% in Provo.
- A higher percentage of residents in Forest hold a high school diploma at 10.5% compared to 4.6% in Provo.
- More residents in Forest have less than a high school education at 33.4% compared to 5.7% in Provo.
- In Provo, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 18.3% 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.