Demographics details for Jurupa valley, CA vs Clayton, NC
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Jurupa valley, CA vs Clayton, NC.
| Data | Jurupa valley | Clayton |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 107,609 | 29,445 |
| Median Age | 33.5 years | 32.6 years |
| Median Income | $91,562 | $71,698 |
| Married Families | 34.0% | 35.0% |
| Poverty Level | 12% | 5% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.9 | 3.7 |
Population Comparison: Jurupa valley vs Clayton
- In Jurupa valley, the population is higher at 107,609, compared to 29,445 in Clayton.
- Residents in Jurupa valley have a higher median age of 33.5 years compared to 32.6 years in Clayton.
- Jurupa valley has a higher median income of $91,562 compared to $71,698 in Clayton.
- In Clayton, the percentage of married families is higher at 35.0%, compared to 34.0% in Jurupa valley.
- Jurupa valley has a higher poverty level at 12% compared to 5% in Clayton.
- The unemployment rate in Jurupa valley is higher at 4.9%, compared to 3.7% in Clayton.
Demographics
Demographics Jurupa valley vs Clayton provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Jurupa valley | Clayton |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 3 | 22 |
| White | 8 | 59 |
| Asian | 4 | 1 |
| Hispanic | 71 | 13 |
| Two or More Races | 13 | 5 |
| American Indian | 1 | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Jurupa valley vs Clayton
- In Clayton, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 22% compared to 3% in Jurupa valley.
- The percentage of White residents is higher in Clayton at 59% compared to 8% in Jurupa valley.
- The Asian population is larger in Jurupa valley at 4% compared to 1% in Clayton.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Jurupa valley at 71% compared to 13% in Clayton.
- More residents identify as two or more races in Jurupa valley at 13% compared to 5% in Clayton.
- A greater percentage of American Indian residents live in Jurupa valley at 1% compared to 0% in Clayton.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Jurupa valley | Clayton |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 16.7% | 15.6% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 13.3% | 10.4% |
| Depression | 17.4% | 23.1% |
| Smoking | 14.6% | 15.2% |
| Binge Drinking | 16.1% | 17.6% |
| Obesity | 38.4% | 39.9% |
| Disability Percentage | 9.0% | 10.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Jurupa valley vs Clayton
- More residents in Jurupa valley report poor mental health at 16.7% compared to 15.6% in Clayton.
- Higher depression rates are seen in Clayton at 23.1% versus 17.4% in Jurupa valley.
- Clayton has a higher smoking rate at 15.2% compared to 14.6% in Jurupa valley.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Clayton at 17.6% compared to 16.1% in Jurupa valley.
- Clayton has higher obesity rates at 39.9% compared to 38.4% in Jurupa valley.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Clayton at 10.0% compared to 9.0% in Jurupa valley.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Jurupa valley | Clayton |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 3.1% (3,376) | 0.7% (210) |
| High School Diploma | 17.3% (18,582) | 12.6% (3,700) |
| Less than High School | 34.3% (36,892) | 5.4% (1,598) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 9.0% (9,706) | 18.6% (5,471) |
Education Levels Comparison: Jurupa valley vs Clayton
- A higher percentage of residents in Jurupa valley have no formal schooling at 3.1% compared to 0.7% in Clayton.
- A higher percentage of residents in Jurupa valley hold a high school diploma at 17.3% compared to 12.6% in Clayton.
- More residents in Jurupa valley have less than a high school education at 34.3% compared to 5.4% in Clayton.
- In Clayton, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 18.6% compared to 9.0% in Jurupa valley.
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.