Demographics details for Clinton, SC vs Greenbelt, MD
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Clinton, SC vs Greenbelt, MD.
| Data | Clinton | Greenbelt |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 7,554 | 24,360 |
| Median Age | 35.4 years | 37.2 years |
| Median Income | $38,350 | $82,019 |
| Married Families | 19.0% | 30.0% |
| Poverty Level | 18% | 9% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.5 | 6.5 |
Population Comparison: Clinton vs Greenbelt
- The population in Greenbelt is higher at 24,360, compared to 7,554 in Clinton.
- The median age in Greenbelt is higher at 37.2 years, compared to 35.4 years in Clinton.
- Greenbelt has a higher median income of $82,019, compared to $38,350 in Clinton.
- In Greenbelt, the percentage of married families is higher at 30.0%, compared to 19.0% in Clinton.
- Clinton has a higher poverty level at 18% compared to 9% in Greenbelt.
- Greenbelt has a higher unemployment rate at 6.5% compared to 4.5% in Clinton.
Demographics
Demographics Clinton vs Greenbelt provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Clinton | Greenbelt |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 38 | 48 |
| White | 55 | 17 |
| Asian | 2 | 12 |
| Hispanic | 1 | 16 |
| Two or More Races | 4 | 6 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Clinton vs Greenbelt
- In Greenbelt, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 48% compared to 38% in Clinton.
- Clinton has a higher percentage of White residents at 55% compared to 17% in Greenbelt.
- In Greenbelt, the Asian population stands at 12%, greater than 2% in Clinton.
- Greenbelt has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 16%, compared to 1% in Clinton.
- The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races is higher in Greenbelt at 6%, compared to 4% in Clinton.
- In Greenbelt, the percentage of American Indian residents is higher at 1%, compared to 0% in Clinton.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Clinton | Greenbelt |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 19.1% | 12.9% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 14.0% | 8.1% |
| Depression | 23.7% | 13.0% |
| Smoking | 22.0% | 9.8% |
| Binge Drinking | 15.8% | 12.3% |
| Obesity | 44.9% | 36.0% |
| Disability Percentage | 17.0% | 10.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Clinton vs Greenbelt
- More residents in Clinton report poor mental health at 19.1% compared to 12.9% in Greenbelt.
- Depression is more prevalent in Clinton at 23.7% compared to 13.0% in Greenbelt.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Clinton at 22.0% compared to 9.8% in Greenbelt.
- Binge drinking is more common in Clinton at 15.8% compared to 12.3% in Greenbelt.
- Obesity rates are higher in Clinton at 44.9% compared to 36.0% in Greenbelt.
- Disability percentages are higher in Clinton at 17.0% compared to 10.0% in Greenbelt.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Clinton | Greenbelt |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 1.0% (74) | 2.2% (530) |
| High School Diploma | 19.3% (1,460) | 9.0% (2,195) |
| Less than High School | 15.6% (1,177) | 11.4% (2,766) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 17.3% (1,310) | 32.2% (7,832) |
Education Levels Comparison: Clinton vs Greenbelt
- In Greenbelt, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 2.2% compared to 1.0% in Clinton.
- A higher percentage of residents in Clinton hold a high school diploma at 19.3% compared to 9.0% in Greenbelt.
- More residents in Clinton have less than a high school education at 15.6% compared to 11.4% in Greenbelt.
- In Greenbelt, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 32.2% compared to 17.3% in Clinton.
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.