Demographics details for Ho ho kus, NJ vs Gilford, NH
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Ho ho kus, NJ vs Gilford, NH.
| Data | Ho ho kus | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 4,216 | 7,194 |
| Median Age | 43.0 years | 47.5 years |
| Median Income | $250,001 | $75,964 |
| Married Families | 52.0% | 0.6% |
| Poverty Level | Data is updating | 6% |
| Unemployment Rate | 2.5 | 2.2 |
Population Comparison: Ho ho kus vs Gilford
- The population in Gilford is higher at 7,194, compared to 4,216 in Ho ho kus.
- The median age in Gilford is higher at 47.5 years, compared to 43.0 years in Ho ho kus.
- Ho ho kus has a higher median income of $250,001 compared to $75,964 in Gilford.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Ho ho kus at 52.0% compared to 0.6% in Gilford.
- The poverty level is higher in Gilford at 6%, compared to 0% in Ho ho kus.
- The unemployment rate in Ho ho kus is higher at 2.5%, compared to 2.2% in Gilford.
Demographics
Demographics Ho ho kus vs Gilford provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Ho ho kus | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 1 | 0.5 |
| White | 67 | 96.2 |
| Asian | 12 | 0.7 |
| Hispanic | 12 | 1.6 |
| Two or More Races | 8 | 1.0 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Ho ho kus vs Gilford
- A higher percentage of Black residents are in Ho ho kus at 1% compared to 0.5% in Gilford.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Gilford at 96.2% compared to 67% in Ho ho kus.
- The Asian population is larger in Ho ho kus at 12% compared to 0.7% in Gilford.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Ho ho kus at 12% compared to 1.6% in Gilford.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Ho ho kus at 8% compared to 1.0% in Gilford.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Ho ho kus and Gilford at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Ho ho kus | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 11.2% | Data is updating% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 5.8% | Data is updating% |
| Depression | 16.6% | Data is updating% |
| Smoking | 6.9% | Data is updating% |
| Binge Drinking | 19.6% | Data is updating% |
| Obesity | 21.9% | Data is updating% |
| Disability Percentage | 5.0% | Data is updating% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Ho ho kus vs Gilford
- More residents in Ho ho kus report poor mental health at 11.2% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Depression is more prevalent in Ho ho kus at 16.6% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Ho ho kus at 6.9% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Binge drinking is more common in Ho ho kus at 19.6% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Obesity rates are higher in Ho ho kus at 21.9% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- Disability percentages are higher in Ho ho kus at 5.0% 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 | Ho ho kus | Gilford |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.0% (Data is updating) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| High School Diploma | 2.8% (117) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| Less than High School | 2.0% (83) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 51.4% (2,167) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
Education Levels Comparison: Ho ho kus vs Gilford
- The percentage of residents with no formal schooling is the same in both Ho ho kus and Gilford at 0.0%.
- A higher percentage of residents in Ho ho kus hold a high school diploma at 2.8% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- More residents in Ho ho kus have less than a high school education at 2.0% compared to 0.0% in Gilford.
- A higher percentage of residents in Ho ho kus hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 51.4% 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.