Demographics details for Federal way, WA vs Clinton, SC
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Federal way, WA vs Clinton, SC.
| Data | Federal way | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 97,863 | 7,554 |
| Median Age | 37.4 years | 35.4 years |
| Median Income | $80,360 | $38,350 |
| Married Families | 39.0% | 19.0% |
| Poverty Level | 9% | 18% |
| Unemployment Rate | 5.7 | 4.5 |
Population Comparison: Federal way vs Clinton
- In Federal way, the population is higher at 97,863, compared to 7,554 in Clinton.
- Residents in Federal way have a higher median age of 37.4 years compared to 35.4 years in Clinton.
- Federal way has a higher median income of $80,360 compared to $38,350 in Clinton.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Federal way at 39.0% compared to 19.0% in Clinton.
- The poverty level is higher in Clinton at 18%, compared to 9% in Federal way.
- The unemployment rate in Federal way is higher at 5.7%, compared to 4.5% in Clinton.
Demographics
Demographics Federal way vs Clinton provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Federal way | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 17 | 38 |
| White | 34 | 55 |
| Asian | 15 | 2 |
| Hispanic | 19 | 1 |
| Two or More Races | 14 | 4 |
| American Indian | 1 | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Federal way vs Clinton
- In Clinton, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 38% compared to 17% in Federal way.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Clinton at 55% compared to 34% in Federal way.
- The Asian population is larger in Federal way at 15% compared to 2% in Clinton.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Federal way at 19% compared to 1% in Clinton.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Federal way at 14% compared to 4% in Clinton.
- A greater percentage of American Indian residents live in Federal way at 1% compared to 0% in Clinton.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Federal way | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 17.5% | 19.1% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 10.9% | 14.0% |
| Depression | 24.7% | 23.7% |
| Smoking | 12.7% | 22.0% |
| Binge Drinking | 16.5% | 15.8% |
| Obesity | 27.2% | 44.9% |
| Disability Percentage | 12.0% | 17.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Federal way vs Clinton
- In Clinton, a higher percentage report poor mental health at 19.1% compared to 17.5% in Federal way.
- Depression is more prevalent in Federal way at 24.7% compared to 23.7% in Clinton.
- Clinton has a higher smoking rate at 22.0% compared to 12.7% in Federal way.
- Binge drinking is more common in Federal way at 16.5% compared to 15.8% in Clinton.
- Clinton has higher obesity rates at 44.9% compared to 27.2% in Federal way.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Clinton at 17.0% compared to 12.0% in Federal way.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Federal way | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 1.8% (1,735) | 1.0% (74) |
| High School Diploma | 15.3% (15,003) | 19.3% (1,460) |
| Less than High School | 11.0% (10,805) | 15.6% (1,177) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 21.2% (20,761) | 17.3% (1,310) |
Education Levels Comparison: Federal way vs Clinton
- A higher percentage of residents in Federal way have no formal schooling at 1.8% compared to 1.0% in Clinton.
- In Clinton, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 19.3% compared to 15.3% in Federal way.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Clinton at 15.6%, compared to 11.0% in Federal way.
- A higher percentage of residents in Federal way hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 21.2% 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.