Advanced Search: Build a Custom Dashboard
In the fields below, search for indicators by location, topics, population, classification, subgroup, or comparison. No fields are required, but we suggest selecting a location or two to start. In the additional search options section, select options to group and order search results. To learn more about how to customize a dashboard, see our help center.
Visit the Indicator List Page to see the full list of indicators and locations available on the site.
Search Results:
Indicator Gauge Icon Legend
Legend Colors
Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.
Compared to Distribution
the value is in the best half of communities.
the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.
the value is in the worst quarter of communities.
Compared to Target
meets target; 
does not meet target.
Compared to a Single Value
lower than the comparison value;
higher than the comparison value;
not statistically different from comparison value.
Trend
non-significant change over time; 
significant change over time; 
no change over time.
Compared to Prior Value
higher than the previous measurement period;
lower than the previous measurement period;
no statistically different change from previous measurement period.
Health / Diabetes
Diabetes: Medicare Population Region: MiHIA
Diabetes: Medicare Population Region: MiHIA
28.0%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,143 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(28.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(27.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(28.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Arenac
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Arenac
26.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(26.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Bay
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Bay
25.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(26.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Clare
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Clare
26.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Gladwin
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Gladwin
24.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Gratiot
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Gratiot
29.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(29.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Huron
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Huron
26.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Iosco
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Iosco
25.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(26.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Isabella
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Isabella
25.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Midland
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Midland
25.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(24.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Ogemaw
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Ogemaw
24.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Roscommon
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Roscommon
26.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(26.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Saginaw
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Saginaw
27.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(28.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Sanilac
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Sanilac
26.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(27.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Tuscola
Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Tuscola
27.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(28.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population Region: MiHIA
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population Region: MiHIA
87.9%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(85.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Arenac
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Arenac
88.4%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(87.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Bay
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Bay
82.6%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(81.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Clare
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Clare
87.8%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(84.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Gladwin
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Gladwin
87.9%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(84.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Gratiot
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Gratiot
90.0%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(88.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Huron
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Huron
84.6%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(82.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Iosco
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Iosco
90.5%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(84.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Isabella
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Isabella
88.0%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(83.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Midland
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Midland
88.6%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(84.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Ogemaw
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Ogemaw
91.5%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(89.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Roscommon
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Roscommon
89.2%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(89.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Saginaw
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Saginaw
88.6%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(86.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Sanilac
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Sanilac
89.2%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(86.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Tuscola
Diabetic Monitoring: Medicare Population County: Tuscola
90.2%
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,097 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(88.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(87.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(86.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Physical Activity
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Arenac
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Arenac
14.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(16.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Bay
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Bay
18.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(18.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Clare
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Clare
17.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(18.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Gladwin
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Gladwin
17.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(16.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Gratiot
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Gratiot
22.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(19.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Huron
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Huron
16.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(19.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Iosco
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Iosco
21.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(17.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Isabella
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Isabella
22.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(19.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Midland
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Midland
15.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(13.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Ogemaw
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Ogemaw
17.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(17.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Roscommon
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Roscommon
20.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(18.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Saginaw
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Saginaw
21.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(21.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Sanilac
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Sanilac
20.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(23.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Tuscola
Adults 20+ who are Sedentary County: Tuscola
16.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(18.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Weight Status
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Arenac
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Arenac
24.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(20.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Bay
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Bay
36.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(33.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Clare
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Clare
28.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(32.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Gladwin
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Gladwin
24.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(24.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Gratiot
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Gratiot
30.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(35.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Huron
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Huron
31.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(27.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Iosco
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Iosco
29.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(29.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Isabella
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Isabella
33.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(32.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Midland
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Midland
29.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(30.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Ogemaw
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Ogemaw
24.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(23.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Roscommon
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Roscommon
24.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Saginaw
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Saginaw
42.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(41.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Sanilac
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Sanilac
25.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(33.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Tuscola
Adults 20+ Who Are Obese County: Tuscola
31.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Prior Value
(28.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(36.0%)
Adults who are Overweight County: Bay
Adults who are Overweight County: Bay
31.9%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(31.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults who are Overweight County: Huron
Adults who are Overweight County: Huron
38.1%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(43.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults who are Overweight County: Midland
Adults who are Overweight County: Midland
43.9%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(44.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults who are Overweight County: Saginaw
Adults who are Overweight County: Saginaw
30.3%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(30.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults who are Overweight County: Sanilac
Adults who are Overweight County: Sanilac
34.5%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(32.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Adults who are Overweight County: Tuscola
Adults who are Overweight County: Tuscola
34.4%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(34.1% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prior Value
(30.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
20.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
20.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(16.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
18.5%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
16.9%
(2012)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
25.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(17.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
21.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(16.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
16.7%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(18.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
21.5%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
12.7%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(12.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
22.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(20.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
22.5%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
Teens who are Obese: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
18.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.3% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(20.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Economy / Food Insecurity
Child Food Insecurity Rate Region: MiHIA
Child Food Insecurity Rate Region: MiHIA
20.7%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(19.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(20.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(22.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
14.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(18.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Bay
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Bay
12.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(17.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Clare
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Clare
20.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(23.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gladwin
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gladwin
14.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(17.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gratiot
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gratiot
12.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(14.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Huron
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Huron
11.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(14.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Iosco
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Iosco
14.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(19.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Isabella
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Isabella
11.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Midland
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Midland
8.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(10.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Ogemaw
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Ogemaw
17.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(20.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Roscommon
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Roscommon
22.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(24.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Saginaw
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Saginaw
18.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(21.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Sanilac
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Sanilac
13.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(17.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Tuscola
Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Tuscola
12.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Economy / Food Insecurity
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance
Value
Compared to:
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Arenac
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Arenac
22%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(21%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Bay
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Bay
20%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(17%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Clare
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Clare
14%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(12%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Gladwin
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Gladwin
0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Gratiot
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Gratiot
15%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(12%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Huron
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Huron
0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Iosco
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Iosco
0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Isabella
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Isabella
11%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(12%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Midland
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Midland
20%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(19%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Ogemaw
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Ogemaw
8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Roscommon
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Roscommon
12%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(10%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Saginaw
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Saginaw
26%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(26%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Sanilac
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Sanilac
5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Tuscola
Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Tuscola
8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(22%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(13%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate Region: MiHIA
Food Insecurity Rate Region: MiHIA
14.5%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(15.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(15.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
14.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Bay
Food Insecurity Rate County: Bay
13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(14.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Clare
Food Insecurity Rate County: Clare
18.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(19.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Gladwin
Food Insecurity Rate County: Gladwin
14.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Gratiot
Food Insecurity Rate County: Gratiot
12.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(13.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Huron
Food Insecurity Rate County: Huron
11.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(13.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Iosco
Food Insecurity Rate County: Iosco
14.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(16.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Isabella
Food Insecurity Rate County: Isabella
14.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Midland
Food Insecurity Rate County: Midland
10.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(11.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Ogemaw
Food Insecurity Rate County: Ogemaw
16.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(17.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Roscommon
Food Insecurity Rate County: Roscommon
17.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(18.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Saginaw
Food Insecurity Rate County: Saginaw
13.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(14.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Sanilac
Food Insecurity Rate County: Sanilac
13.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(15.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Food Insecurity Rate County: Tuscola
Food Insecurity Rate County: Tuscola
13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(11.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Prior Value
(14.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children Region: MiHIA
Households Receiving SNAP with Children Region: MiHIA
41.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Arenac
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Arenac
35.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Bay
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Bay
40.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Clare
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Clare
39.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Gladwin
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Gladwin
31.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Gratiot
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Gratiot
49.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Huron
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Huron
33.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Iosco
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Iosco
31.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Isabella
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Isabella
40.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Midland
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Midland
43.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Ogemaw
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Ogemaw
40.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Roscommon
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Roscommon
36.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Saginaw
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Saginaw
44.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Sanilac
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Sanilac
40.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Tuscola
Households Receiving SNAP with Children County: Tuscola
45.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(43.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Arenac
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Arenac
338
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Bay
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Bay
2,328
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Clare
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Clare
835
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Gladwin
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Gladwin
500
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Gratiot
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Gratiot
1,041
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Huron
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Huron
453
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Iosco
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Iosco
543
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Isabella
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Isabella
998
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Midland
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Midland
1,640
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Ogemaw
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Ogemaw
719
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Roscommon
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Roscommon
597
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Saginaw
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Saginaw
6,729
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Sanilac
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Sanilac
885
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Tuscola
Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count) County: Tuscola
1,237
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac
19.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(32.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
