Demographics details for Southaven, MS vs Griffin, GA
Population Overview
Compare main population characteristics in Southaven, MS vs Griffin, GA.
| Data | Southaven | Griffin |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 56,360 | 23,693 |
| Median Age | 35.4 years | 33.2 years |
| Median Income | $72,513 | $42,047 |
| Married Families | 37.0% | 26.0% |
| Poverty Level | 12% | 15% |
| Unemployment Rate | 3.2 | 4.5 |
Population Comparison: Southaven vs Griffin
- In Southaven, the population is higher at 56,360, compared to 23,693 in Griffin.
- Residents in Southaven have a higher median age of 35.4 years compared to 33.2 years in Griffin.
- Southaven has a higher median income of $72,513 compared to $42,047 in Griffin.
- A higher percentage of married families is found in Southaven at 37.0% compared to 26.0% in Griffin.
- The poverty level is higher in Griffin at 15%, compared to 12% in Southaven.
- Griffin has a higher unemployment rate at 4.5% compared to 3.2% in Southaven.
Demographics
Demographics Southaven vs Griffin provide insight into the diversity of the communities to compare.
| Demographic | Southaven | Griffin |
|---|---|---|
| Black | 35 | 52 |
| White | 55 | 36 |
| Asian | 1 | 1 |
| Hispanic | 5 | 5 |
| Two or More Races | 4 | 5 |
| American Indian | Data is updating | 1 |
Demographics Comparison: Southaven vs Griffin
- In Griffin, the percentage of Black residents is higher at 52% compared to 35% in Southaven.
- Southaven has a higher percentage of White residents at 55% compared to 36% in Griffin.
- Both Southaven and Griffin have the same percentage of Asian residents at 1%.
- The percentage of Hispanic residents is the same in both Southaven and Griffin at 5%.
- The percentage of residents identifying as two or more races is higher in Griffin at 5%, compared to 4% in Southaven.
- In Griffin, the percentage of American Indian residents is higher at 1%, compared to 0% in Southaven.
Health Statistics
The health statistics provide insights into prevalent health conditions in two communities.
| Health Metric | Southaven | Griffin |
|---|---|---|
| Mental Health Not Good | 15.6% | 18.8% |
| Physical Health Not Good | 10.9% | 14.6% |
| Depression | 22.9% | 19.7% |
| Smoking | 16.7% | 22.4% |
| Binge Drinking | 14.1% | 13.4% |
| Obesity | 39.7% | 38.8% |
| Disability Percentage | 10.0% | 13.0% |
Health Statistics Comparison: Southaven vs Griffin
- In Griffin, a higher percentage report poor mental health at 18.8% compared to 15.6% in Southaven.
- Depression is more prevalent in Southaven at 22.9% compared to 19.7% in Griffin.
- Griffin has a higher smoking rate at 22.4% compared to 16.7% in Southaven.
- Binge drinking is more common in Southaven at 14.1% compared to 13.4% in Griffin.
- Obesity rates are higher in Southaven at 39.7% compared to 38.8% in Griffin.
- There is a higher percentage of disabled individuals in Griffin at 13.0% compared to 10.0% in Southaven.
Education Levels
The educational attainment in the area helps gauge the workforce's skill level and economic potential.
| Education Level | Southaven | Griffin |
|---|---|---|
| No Schooling | 1.2% (658) | 2.2% (517) |
| High School Diploma | 15.8% (8,925) | 22.6% (5,347) |
| Less than High School | 8.7% (4,879) | 16.3% (3,859) |
| Bachelor's Degree and Higher | 16.0% (9,035) | 11.9% (2,819) |
Education Levels Comparison: Southaven vs Griffin
- In Griffin, a larger percentage of residents lack formal schooling at 2.2% compared to 1.2% in Southaven.
- In Griffin, the rate of residents with high school diplomas is higher at 22.6% compared to 15.8% in Southaven.
- The percentage of residents with less than a high school education is higher in Griffin at 16.3%, compared to 8.7% in Southaven.
- A higher percentage of residents in Southaven hold a bachelor's degree or higher at 16.0% compared to 11.9% in Griffin.
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.