Costa Rican Population in Douglas County, KS by City : 2025 Ranking & Insights

The Costa Rican population in Douglas County, KS totals 56 residents, all residing in Lawrence - the only city in the county with any recorded presence. The remaining cities in this analysis*, Baldwin City and Eudora, report zero residents of Costa Rican ancestry. This pattern suggests a hyper-localized demographic cluster within Lawrence. Below, we explore how Douglas County compares with other counties across Kansas.

Top 5 cities with the largest Costa Rican population in Douglas County

  • 1
    Lawrence
    Costa Rican population in Lawrence is 56
    0.06% of Lawrence population is Costa Rican
  • 2
    Baldwin City
    Costa Rican population in Baldwin City is 0
    - of Baldwin City population is Costa Rican
  • 3
    Eudora
    Costa Rican population in Eudora is 0
    - of Eudora population is Costa Rican
  • 4
    Lecompton
    Costa Rican population in Lecompton is 0
    - of Lecompton population is Costa Rican

Overview of Costa Rican population in Douglas County

  • Population Count and Percentage: American Community Survey data document Douglas County with 56 Costa Rican residents (0.047% of 119,547 total county population), positioning the jurisdiction at the 87th percentile nationally among counties and 97th percentile within Kansas for Costa Rican population concentrations, despite absolute population figures.
  • Comparison to State and National Averages: Census Bureau's ACS indicate Douglas County's Costa Rican population of 0.047% exceeds Kansas's state average of 0.016% while remaining below the national average of 0.055%, placing the county above regional demographic benchmarks while below national concentration levels.
  • Share of Total State Population: Official American Community Survey indicate Douglas County's 56 Costa Rican residents constitute 12.2% of Kansas's total Costa Rican population of 460, placing the county among jurisdictions with the highest demographic concentrations, with 12.2% of all Kansas Costa Rican Americans residing within county boundaries.
  • Population Density per Square Mile: U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data shows Douglas County maintains 0.12 Costa Rican Americans per square mile, representing more than twenty-one times Kansas's average of less than 0.01 per square mile, establishing the county as an exceptional concentration center comparable to major metropolitan demographic areas.
  • Need additional overviews? Extended research data available for purchase and license. ➔

Douglas County Cities Ranked by Costa Rican Population

American Community Survey data [1] indicate 56 Costa Rican population in Lawrence and zero in Baldwin City and Eudora. The table below provides broader statistics, including total population figures, density measures, and demographic distributions based on current ACS data for the three incorporated cities included in this analysis*.
cities in Douglas County, KS ranked by Costa Rican population count
Rank by Costa Rican Population
City
Costa Rican Population
% of Total City Population
% of Total Douglas County Costa Rican Population
5 Year Rank Trend
1 Lawrence 56 0.06% 100.00%
2 Baldwin City 0 - -
2 Eudora 0 - -
2 Lecompton 0 - -
Need the complete table? Full rankings and the underlying data sets for California and other locations are available for purchase or license.

Methodology

This ranking list is based on data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS is one of the most reliable sources for understanding population trends across different locations, and it provides estimates for various racial and ethnic groups at city, county, state and all geography levels down to the Census block group.
This list ranks city in Douglas County, KS by their Costa Rican population, using the most recent ACS data available.

How the Census defines Costa Rican population

The U.S. Census Bureau allows people to self-identify their ancestry, meaning individuals can write upto ancestries when responding to the survey. In this ranking, we include everyone who identifies as having Costa Rican ancestry, whether alone or in combination with another ancestry.
Here are a few important things to know about how ancestry is reported:
  • Some people identify as Costa Rican alone, while others identify as Costa Rican along with another race (such as Costa Rican and German).
  • We’ve used the “Costa Rican alone or in any combination” category unless noted otherwise, which gives a broader picture of the Costa Rican population in each area.

How We Ranked the Data

This ranking is based on the total number of people who identified as Costa Rican alone or in combination in city. To provide additional context, we’ve also included two key percentages:
  1. % of Total City Population – This shows what percentage of the total state population identifies as Costa Rican .
  2. % of Total Douglas County Costa Rican Population – This tells us how much of the entire U.S. Costa Rican population lives in that state.
To keep things simple, all population numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number, and percentages are rounded to one decimal place. Because of rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

Things to Keep in Mind

Like all survey-based data, ACS estimates come with some limitations. Here are a few things to be aware of:
  • In places with very small Costa Rican populations, the numbers may not be reported at all due to privacy protections or sampling variability in the survey.
  • Since the ACS is based on a sample, the numbers are estimates, not exact counts. That means they may slightly differ from other sources like the decennial U.S. Census.
  • City that don’t have any reported Costa Rican population are not included in the ranking but are listed separately below for reference.
This ranking is meant to provide a clear, data-driven look at where Costa Rican populations are most concentrated while keeping the numbers easy to understand.

Sources

  1. 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.
  2. 2023.