Demographics details for Provo, UT vs Macclenny, FL
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Provo, UT vs Macclenny, FL.
| Data | Provo | Macclenny |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 113,523 | 7,670 |
| Median Age | 23.6 years | 37.5 years |
| Median Income | $57,943 | $62,134 |
| Married Families | 36.0% | 32.0% |
| Poverty Level | 11% | 11% |
| Unemployment Rate | 4.0 | 3.5 |
Population Comparison: Provo vs Macclenny
- In Provo, the population is higher at 113,523, compared to 7,670 in Macclenny.
- The median age in Macclenny is higher at 37.5 years, compared to 23.6 years in Provo.
- Macclenny has a higher median income of $62,134, compared to $57,943 in Provo.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Provo at 36.0% compared to 32.0% in Macclenny.
- The poverty level is identical in both Provo and Macclenny at 11%.
- The unemployment rate in Provo is higher at 4.0%, compared to 3.5% in Macclenny.
Demographics
Demographics Provo vs Macclenny provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Provo | Macclenny |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 1 | 19 |
| White | 69 | 66 |
| Asian | 2 | 1 |
| Hispanic | 18 | 4 |
| Two or More Races | 9 | 9 |
| American Indian | 1 | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Provo vs Macclenny
- In Macclenny, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 19% compared to 1% in Provo.
- Provo has a higher percentage of White residents at 69% compared to 66% in Macclenny.
- The Asian population is larger in Provo at 2% compared to 1% in Macclenny.
- The Hispanic community is larger in Provo at 18% compared to 4% in Macclenny.
- Both Provo and Macclenny have the same percentage of residents identifying as two or more races at 9%.
- The percentage of American Indian residents is the same in both Provo and Macclenny at 1%.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Provo | Macclenny |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 16.3% | 17.2% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 12.0% | 11.2% |
| Depression | 24.5% | 20.4% |
| Smoking | 8.4% | 22.6% |
| Binge Drinking | 7.3% | 17.1% |
| Obesity | 33.5% | 36.5% |
| Disability Percentage | 10.0% | 14.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Provo vs Macclenny
- In Macclenny, a higher percentage report poor mental health at 17.2% compared to 16.3% in Provo.
- Depression is more prevalent in Provo at 24.5% compared to 20.4% in Macclenny.
- Macclenny has a higher smoking rate at 22.6% compared to 8.4% in Provo.
- More residents engage in binge drinking in Macclenny at 17.1% compared to 7.3% in Provo.
- Macclenny has higher obesity rates at 36.5% compared to 33.5% in Provo.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Macclenny at 14.0% compared to 10.0% in Provo.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Provo | Macclenny |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 0.6% (663) | 0.1% (4) |
| High School Diploma | 4.6% (5,209) | 17.8% (1,365) |
| Less than High School | 5.7% (6,435) | 13.5% (1,033) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 18.3% (20,752) | 10.4% (799) |
Education Levels Comparison: Provo vs Macclenny
- A higher percentage of residents in Provo have no formal schooling at 0.6% compared to 0.1% in Macclenny.
- In Macclenny, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 17.8% compared to 4.6% in Provo.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Macclenny at 13.5%, compared to 5.7% in Provo.
- A higher percentage of residents in Provo hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 18.3% compared to 10.4% in Macclenny.
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.