Demographics details for Clinton, SC vs Stuttgart, AR
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Clinton, SC vs Stuttgart, AR.
| Data | Clinton | Stuttgart |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 7,554 | 7,907 |
| Median Age | 35.4 years | 37.8 years |
| Median Income | $38,350 | $59,124 |
| Married Families | 19.0% | 39.0% |
| Poverty Level | 18% | 18% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.5 | 4.2 |
Population Comparison: Clinton vs Stuttgart
- The population in Stuttgart is higher at 7,907, compared to 7,554 in Clinton.
- The median age in Stuttgart is higher at 37.8 years, compared to 35.4 years in Clinton.
- Stuttgart has a higher median income of $59,124, compared to $38,350 in Clinton.
- In Stuttgart, the percentage of married families is higher at 39.0%, compared to 19.0% in Clinton.
- The poverty level is identical in both Clinton and Stuttgart at 18%.
- The unemployment rate in Clinton is higher at 4.5%, compared to 4.2% in Stuttgart.
Demographics
Demographics Clinton vs Stuttgart provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Clinton | Stuttgart |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 38 | 42 |
| White | 55 | 53 |
| Asian | 2 | Data is updating |
| Hispanic | 1 | 2 |
| Two or More Races | 4 | 3 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Clinton vs Stuttgart
- In Stuttgart, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 42% compared to 38% in Clinton.
- Clinton has a higher percentage of White residents at 55% compared to 53% in Stuttgart.
- The Asian population is larger in Clinton at 2% compared to 0% in Stuttgart.
- Stuttgart has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents at 2%, compared to 1% in Clinton.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Clinton at 4% compared to 3% in Stuttgart.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Clinton and Stuttgart at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Clinton | Stuttgart |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 19.1% | 19.8% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 14.0% | 14.6% |
| Depression | 23.7% | 24.4% |
| Smoking | 22.0% | 23.1% |
| Binge Drinking | 15.8% | 13.6% |
| Obesity | 44.9% | 39.7% |
| Disability Percentage | 17.0% | 20.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Clinton vs Stuttgart
- In Stuttgart, a higher percentage report poor mental health at 19.8% compared to 19.1% in Clinton.
- Higher depression rates are seen in Stuttgart at 24.4% versus 23.7% in Clinton.
- Stuttgart has a higher smoking rate at 23.1% compared to 22.0% in Clinton.
- Binge drinking is more common in Clinton at 15.8% compared to 13.6% in Stuttgart.
- Obesity rates are higher in Clinton at 44.9% compared to 39.7% in Stuttgart.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Stuttgart at 20.0% compared to 17.0% in Clinton.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Clinton | Stuttgart |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 1.0% (74) | 0.8% (63) |
| High School Diploma | 19.3% (1,460) | 25.5% (2,015) |
| Less than High School | 15.6% (1,177) | 14.5% (1,144) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 17.3% (1,310) | 12.0% (948) |
Education Levels Comparison: Clinton vs Stuttgart
- A higher percentage of residents in Clinton have no formal schooling at 1.0% compared to 0.8% in Stuttgart.
- In Stuttgart, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 25.5% compared to 19.3% in Clinton.
- More residents in Clinton have less than a high school education at 15.6% compared to 14.5% in Stuttgart.
- A higher percentage of residents in Clinton hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 17.3% compared to 12.0% in Stuttgart.
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.