Demographics details for Lexington, TN vs Clinton, SC
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Lexington, TN vs Clinton, SC.
| Data | Lexington | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 7,952 | 7,554 |
| Median Age | 36.6 years | 35.4 years |
| Median Income | $45,877 | $38,350 |
| Married Families | 35.0% | 19.0% |
| Poverty Level | 13% | 18% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.2 | 4.5 |
Population Comparison: Lexington vs Clinton
- In Lexington, the population is higher at 7,952, compared to 7,554 in Clinton.
- Residents in Lexington have a higher median age of 36.6 years compared to 35.4 years in Clinton.
- Lexington has a higher median income of $45,877 compared to $38,350 in Clinton.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Lexington at 35.0% compared to 19.0% in Clinton.
- The poverty level is higher in Clinton at 18%, compared to 13% in Lexington.
- Clinton has a higher unemployment rate at 4.5% compared to 4.2% in Lexington.
Demographics
Demographics Lexington vs Clinton provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Lexington | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 17 | 38 |
| White | 81 | 55 |
| Asian | Data is updating | 2 |
| Hispanic | 1 | 1 |
| Two or More Races | 1 | 4 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | Data is updating |
Demographics Comparison: Lexington vs Clinton
- In Clinton, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 38% compared to 17% in Lexington.
- Lexington has a higher percentage of White residents at 81% compared to 55% in Clinton.
- In Clinton, the Asian population stands at 2%, greater than 0% in Lexington.
- The percentage of Hispanic residents is the same in both Lexington and Clinton at 1%.
- The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races is higher in Clinton at 4%, compared to 1% in Lexington.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Lexington and Clinton at 0%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Lexington | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 21.6% | 19.1% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 15.3% | 14.0% |
| Depression | 30.4% | 23.7% |
| Smoking | 26.1% | 22.0% |
| Binge Drinking | 14.4% | 15.8% |
| Obesity | 39.9% | 44.9% |
| Disability Percentage | 14.0% | 17.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Lexington vs Clinton
- More residents in Lexington report poor mental health at 21.6% compared to 19.1% in Clinton.
- Depression is more prevalent in Lexington at 30.4% compared to 23.7% in Clinton.
- Smoking is more prevalent in Lexington at 26.1% compared to 22.0% in Clinton.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Clinton at 15.8% compared to 14.4% in Lexington.
- Clinton has higher obesity rates at 44.9% compared to 39.9% in Lexington.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Clinton at 17.0% compared to 14.0% in Lexington.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Lexington | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.4% (29) | 1.0% (74) |
| High School Diploma | 22.4% (1,783) | 19.3% (1,460) |
| Less than High School | 14.6% (1,159) | 15.6% (1,177) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 9.3% (740) | 17.3% (1,310) |
Education Levels Comparison: Lexington vs Clinton
- In Clinton, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 1.0% compared to 0.4% in Lexington.
- A higher percentage of residents in Lexington hold a high school diploma at 22.4% compared to 19.3% in Clinton.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Clinton at 15.6%, compared to 14.6% in Lexington.
- In Clinton, a larger share of residents have a bachelor's degree or higher at 17.3% compared to 9.3% in Lexington.
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.