Demographics details for Goodyear, AZ vs Flomaton, AL
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Goodyear, AZ vs Flomaton, AL.
| Data | Goodyear | Flomaton |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 105,406 | 1,458 |
| Median Age | 40.4 years | 32.6 years |
| Median Income | $97,307 | $37,500 |
| Married Families | 44.0% | 35.0% |
| Poverty Level | 7% | 15% |
| Unemployment Rate | 3.8 | 5.2 |
Population Comparison: Goodyear vs Flomaton
- In Goodyear, the population is higher at 105,406, compared to 1,458 in Flomaton.
- Residents in Goodyear have a higher median age of 40.4 years compared to 32.6 years in Flomaton.
- Goodyear has a higher median income of $97,307 compared to $37,500 in Flomaton.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Goodyear at 44.0% compared to 35.0% in Flomaton.
- The poverty level is higher in Flomaton at 15%, compared to 7% in Goodyear.
- Flomaton has a higher unemployment rate at 5.2% compared to 3.8% in Goodyear.
Demographics
Demographics Goodyear vs Flomaton provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Goodyear | Flomaton |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 6 | 38 |
| White | 45 | 58 |
| Asian | 3 | Data is updating |
| Hispanic | 30 | Data is updating |
| Two or More Races | 14 | 4 |
| American Indian | 2 | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Goodyear vs Flomaton
- In Flomaton, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 38% compared to 6% in Goodyear.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Flomaton at 58% compared to 45% in Goodyear.
- The Asian population is larger in Goodyear at 3% compared to 0% in Flomaton.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Goodyear at 30% compared to 0% in Flomaton.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Goodyear at 14% compared to 4% in Flomaton.
- A greater percentage of American Indian residents live in Goodyear at 2% compared to 0% in Flomaton.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Goodyear | Flomaton |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 16.6% | 21.3% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 9.8% | 15.3% |
| Depression | 19.5% | 24.6% |
| Smoking | 13.3% | 24.1% |
| Binge Drinking | 17.9% | 13.7% |
| Obesity | 29.7% | 45.3% |
| Disability Percentage | 9.0% | 19.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Goodyear vs Flomaton
- In Flomaton, a higher percentage report poor mental health at 21.3% compared to 16.6% in Goodyear.
- Higher depression rates are seen in Flomaton at 24.6% versus 19.5% in Goodyear.
- Flomaton has a higher smoking rate at 24.1% compared to 13.3% in Goodyear.
- Binge drinking is more common in Goodyear at 17.9% compared to 13.7% in Flomaton.
- Flomaton has higher obesity rates at 45.3% compared to 29.7% in Goodyear.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Flomaton at 19.0% compared to 9.0% in Goodyear.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Goodyear | Flomaton |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.8% (794) | 0.0% (Data is updating) |
| High School Diploma | 10.8% (11,354) | 25.0% (364) |
| Less than High School | 8.9% (9,427) | 19.1% (278) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 21.7% (22,880) | 9.4% (137) |
Education Levels Comparison: Goodyear vs Flomaton
- A higher percentage of residents in Goodyear have no formal schooling at 0.8% compared to 0.0% in Flomaton.
- In Flomaton, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 25.0% compared to 10.8% in Goodyear.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Flomaton at 19.1%, compared to 8.9% in Goodyear.
- A higher percentage of residents in Goodyear hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 21.7% compared to 9.4% in Flomaton.
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.