Skip to main content

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.

  • Map View
  • County : Arenac Census Tracts
  • County : Arenac Zip Codes
  • County : Bay Census Tracts
  • County : Bay Zip Codes
  • County : Clare Census Tracts
  • County : Clare Zip Codes
  • County : Gladwin Census Tracts
  • County : Gladwin Zip Codes
  • County : Gratiot Census Tracts
  • County : Gratiot Zip Codes
  • County : Huron Census Tracts
  • County : Huron Zip Codes
  • County : Iosco Census Tracts
  • County : Iosco Zip Codes
  • County : Isabella Census Tracts
  • County : Isabella Zip Codes
  • County : Midland Census Tracts
  • County : Midland Zip Codes
  • County : Ogemaw Census Tracts
  • County : Ogemaw Zip Codes
  • County : Roscommon Census Tracts
  • County : Roscommon Zip Codes
  • County : Saginaw Census Tracts
  • County : Saginaw Zip Codes
  • County : Sanilac Census Tracts
  • County : Sanilac Zip Codes
  • County : Tuscola Census Tracts
  • County : Tuscola Zip Codes
  • All Health Topics
  • All Community Topics
  • All Economy Topics
  • All Education Topics
  • All Environmental Health Topics
Search display options:

Search Results:

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.

Compared to Distribution

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

Health / Children's Health

Health / Children's Health

Health / Children's Health

Child Care Centers

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Care Centers

Value
Compared to:

Child Care Centers State: Michigan

Current Value:

Child Care Centers State: Michigan

8.9
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Michigan has a value of 8.9 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Michigan (8.9) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.6).
Prior Value
(8.6)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Arenac

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Arenac

8.8
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Arenac has a value of 8.8 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Arenac has a value of 8.8 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Arenac has a value of 8.8 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Arenac (8.8) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.7).
Prior Value
(8.7)
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 Care Centers County: Bay

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Bay

10.3
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Bay has a value of 10.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Bay has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Bay has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Bay (10.3) is greater and better than the previously measured value (10.1).
Prior Value
(10.1)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Clare

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Clare

10.5
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Clare has a value of 10.5 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Clare has a value of 10.5 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Clare has a value of 10.5 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Clare (10.5) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.4).
Prior Value
(8.4)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Gladwin

8.2
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Gladwin has a value of 8.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Gladwin has a value of 8.2 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Gladwin has a value of 8.2 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Gladwin (8.2) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.0).
Prior Value
(8.0)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Gratiot

7.6
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Gratiot has a value of 7.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Gratiot has a value of 7.6 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Gratiot has a value of 7.6 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Gratiot (7.6) is greater and better than the previously measured value (7.4).
Prior Value
(7.4)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Huron

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Huron

15.1
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Huron has a value of 15.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Huron has a value of 15.1 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Huron has a value of 15.1 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Huron (15.1) is less and worse than the previously measured value (16.5).
Prior Value
(16.5)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Iosco

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Iosco

10.3
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Iosco has a value of 10.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Iosco has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Iosco has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Iosco (10.3) is greater and better than the previously measured value (10.0).
Prior Value
(10.0)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Isabella

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Isabella

9.6
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Isabella has a value of 9.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Isabella has a value of 9.6 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Isabella has a value of 9.6 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Isabella (9.6) is greater and better than the previously measured value (9.2).
Prior Value
(9.2)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Midland

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Midland

10.2
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Midland has a value of 10.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Midland has a value of 10.2 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Midland has a value of 10.2 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Midland (10.2) is less and worse than the previously measured value (10.4).
Prior Value
(10.4)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Ogemaw

7.7
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Ogemaw has a value of 7.7 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Ogemaw has a value of 7.7 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Ogemaw has a value of 7.7 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Ogemaw (7.7) is greater and better than the previously measured value (7.6).
Prior Value
(7.6)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Roscommon

13.8
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Roscommon has a value of 13.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Roscommon has a value of 13.8 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Roscommon has a value of 13.8 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Roscommon (13.8) is greater and better than the previously measured value (12.9).
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.

Child Care Centers County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Saginaw

9.2
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Saginaw has a value of 9.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Saginaw has a value of 9.2 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Saginaw has a value of 9.2 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Saginaw (9.2) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.6).
Prior Value
(8.6)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Sanilac

10.1
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Sanilac has a value of 10.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Sanilac has a value of 10.1 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Sanilac has a value of 10.1 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Sanilac (10.1) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.9).
Prior Value
(8.9)
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.

Child Care Centers County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Tuscola

8.1
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Tuscola has a value of 8.1 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.3.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (8.9), Tuscola has a value of 8.1 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(8.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Tuscola has a value of 8.1 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Tuscola (8.1) is less and worse than the previously measured value (8.6).
Prior Value
(8.6)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Child Food Insecurity Rate State: Michigan

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate State: Michigan

13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to U.S. States, Michigan has a value of 13.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of states. States in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.8% while states in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.8%.
U.S. States
The distribution is based on data from 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Michigan has a value of 13.1% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Michigan (13.1%) is less and better than the previously measured value (13.7%).
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.
Over time, the Michigan value is decreasing, significantly.
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 Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate Region: MiHIA

20.7%
(2014)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, MiHIA has a value of 20.7% which is in the best 50% of regions. Regions in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.4% while regions in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.6%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, MiHIA has a value of 20.7% which is in the best 50% of regions. Regions in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.7% while regions in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (19.7%), MiHIA has a value of 20.7% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(19.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (20.9%), MiHIA has a value of 20.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(20.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, MiHIA (20.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (22.7%).
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Arenac

14.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Arenac has a value of 14.5% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Arenac has a value of 14.5% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Arenac has a value of 14.5% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Arenac has a value of 14.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Arenac (14.5%) is less and better than the previously measured value (18.5%).
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.
Over time, the Arenac value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Bay

12.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Bay has a value of 12.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Bay has a value of 12.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Bay has a value of 12.8% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Bay has a value of 12.8%.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Bay (12.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (17.3%).
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.
Over time, the Bay value is decreasing, not significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Clare

20.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Clare has a value of 20.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Clare has a value of 20.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Clare has a value of 20.4% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Clare has a value of 20.4% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Clare (20.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (23.3%).
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.
Over time, the Clare value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gladwin

14.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Gladwin has a value of 14.3% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Gladwin has a value of 14.3% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Gladwin has a value of 14.3% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Gladwin has a value of 14.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Gladwin (14.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (17.6%).
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.
Over time, the Gladwin value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Gratiot

12.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Gratiot has a value of 12.3% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Gratiot has a value of 12.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Gratiot has a value of 12.3% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Gratiot has a value of 12.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Gratiot (12.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (14.6%).
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.
Over time, the Gratiot value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Huron

11.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Huron has a value of 11.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Huron has a value of 11.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Huron has a value of 11.0% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Huron has a value of 11.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Huron (11.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (14.7%).
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.
Over time, the Huron value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Iosco

14.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Iosco has a value of 14.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Iosco has a value of 14.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Iosco has a value of 14.6% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Iosco has a value of 14.6% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Iosco (14.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (19.4%).
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.
Over time, the Iosco value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Isabella

11.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Isabella has a value of 11.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Isabella has a value of 11.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Isabella has a value of 11.7% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Isabella has a value of 11.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Isabella (11.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (15.2%).
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.
Over time, the Isabella value is staying the same.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Midland

8.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Midland has a value of 8.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Midland has a value of 8.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Midland has a value of 8.4% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Midland has a value of 8.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Midland (8.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (10.5%).
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.
Over time, the Midland value is decreasing, not significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Ogemaw

17.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Ogemaw has a value of 17.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Ogemaw has a value of 17.3% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Ogemaw has a value of 17.3% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Ogemaw has a value of 17.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Ogemaw (17.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (20.7%).
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.
Over time, the Ogemaw value is decreasing, significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Roscommon

22.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Roscommon has a value of 22.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Roscommon has a value of 22.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Roscommon has a value of 22.3% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Roscommon has a value of 22.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Roscommon (22.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (24.7%).
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.
Over time, the Roscommon value is decreasing, not significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Saginaw

18.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Saginaw has a value of 18.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Saginaw has a value of 18.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Saginaw has a value of 18.7% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Saginaw has a value of 18.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Saginaw (18.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (21.9%).
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.
Over time, the Saginaw value is increasing, not significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Sanilac

13.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Sanilac has a value of 13.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Sanilac has a value of 13.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Sanilac has a value of 13.8% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Sanilac has a value of 13.8% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Sanilac (13.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (17.5%).
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.
Over time, the Sanilac value is decreasing, not significantly.
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

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Tuscola

12.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Tuscola has a value of 12.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Tuscola has a value of 12.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (13.1%), Tuscola has a value of 12.2% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(13.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Tuscola has a value of 12.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Tuscola (12.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (15.7%).
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.
Over time, the Tuscola value is decreasing, significantly.
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 / Children's Health

Children with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Children with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Children with a Disability State: Michigan

Current Value:

Children with a Disability State: Michigan

5.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Michigan (5.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4.7%).
Prior Value
(4.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Michigan value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Bay

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Bay

6.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Bay has a value of 6.6%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Bay (6.6%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.2%).
Prior Value
(5.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Bay value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Clare

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Clare

4.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Clare has a value of 4.5%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Clare (4.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (3.1%).
Prior Value
(3.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Clare value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Gladwin

3.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Gladwin has a value of 3.4%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Gladwin (3.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (3.7%).
Prior Value
(3.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Gladwin value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Gratiot

2.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Gratiot has a value of 2.8%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Gratiot (2.8%) is less  than the previously measured value (13.5%).
Prior Value
(13.5%)
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.
Over time, the Gratiot value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Huron

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Huron

6.2%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Huron has a value of 6.2%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Huron (6.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (2.0%).
Prior Value
(2.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Huron value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Iosco

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Iosco

11.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Iosco has a value of 11.7%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Iosco (11.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.7%).
Prior Value
(5.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Iosco value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Isabella

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Isabella

6.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Isabella has a value of 6.4%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Isabella (6.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4.6%).
Prior Value
(4.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Isabella value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Midland

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Midland

2.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Midland has a value of 2.5%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Midland (2.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.9%).
Prior Value
(6.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Midland value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Ogemaw

6.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Ogemaw has a value of 6.8%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Ogemaw (6.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (10.8%).
Prior Value
(10.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Ogemaw value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Roscommon

2.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Roscommon has a value of 2.5%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Roscommon (2.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4.6%).
Prior Value
(4.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Roscommon value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Saginaw

7.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Saginaw has a value of 7.3%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Saginaw (7.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.6%).
Prior Value
(7.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Saginaw value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Sanilac

9.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Sanilac has a value of 9.3%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Sanilac (9.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (4.7%).
Prior Value
(4.7%)
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.
Over time, the Sanilac value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Tuscola

5.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (5.1%), Tuscola has a value of 5.4%.
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Tuscola (5.4%) is greater  than the previously measured value (4.0%).
Prior Value
(4.0%)
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.
Over time, the Tuscola value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Akron

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Akron

5.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Akron has a value of 5.7%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Akron has a value of 5.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Akron has a value of 5.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Akron value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Alma

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Alma

11.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), Alma has a value of 11.4%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Alma has a value of 11.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Alma has a value of 11.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Alma value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Applegate

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Applegate

3.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Applegate has a value of 3.7%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Applegate has a value of 3.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Applegate has a value of 3.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Applegate value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ashley

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ashley

10.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), Ashley has a value of 10.8%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Ashley has a value of 10.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Ashley has a value of 10.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Ashley value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Au Gres

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Au Gres

5.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Au Gres has a value of 5.6%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Au Gres has a value of 5.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Au Gres has a value of 5.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Au Gres value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Au Sable

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Au Sable

7.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), Au Sable has a value of 7.5%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Au Sable has a value of 7.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Au Sable has a value of 7.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Au Sable value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Auburn

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Auburn

2.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Bay, MI County Value (5.2%), Auburn has a value of 2.5%.
Bay, MI County Value
(5.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Bay County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Auburn has a value of 2.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Auburn has a value of 2.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Auburn value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bad Axe

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bad Axe

3.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Bad Axe has a value of 3.7%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Bad Axe has a value of 3.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Bad Axe has a value of 3.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Bad Axe value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bay City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bay City

7.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Bay, MI County Value (5.2%), Bay City has a value of 7.6%.
Bay, MI County Value
(5.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Bay County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Bay City has a value of 7.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Bay City has a value of 7.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Bay City value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bay Port

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bay Port

1.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Bay Port has a value of 1.8%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Bay Port has a value of 1.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Bay Port has a value of 1.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Bay Port value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Beal City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Beal City

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Beal City has a value of 0.0%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Beal City has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Beal City has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Beal City value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Beaverton

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Beaverton

16.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gladwin, MI County Value (4.3%), Beaverton has a value of 16.2%.
Gladwin, MI County Value
(4.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Gladwin County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Beaverton has a value of 16.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Beaverton has a value of 16.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Beaverton value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Birch Run

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Birch Run

3.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Birch Run has a value of 3.8%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Birch Run has a value of 3.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Birch Run has a value of 3.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Birch Run value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Breckenridge

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Breckenridge

3.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), Breckenridge has a value of 3.9%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Breckenridge has a value of 3.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Breckenridge has a value of 3.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Breckenridge value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bridgeport

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Bridgeport

17.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Bridgeport has a value of 17.6%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Bridgeport has a value of 17.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Bridgeport has a value of 17.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Bridgeport value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Brown City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Brown City

3.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Brown City has a value of 3.5%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Brown City has a value of 3.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Brown City has a value of 3.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Brown City value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Buena Vista

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Buena Vista

8.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Buena Vista has a value of 8.4%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Buena Vista has a value of 8.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Buena Vista has a value of 8.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Buena Vista value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Burt

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Burt

6.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Burt has a value of 6.3%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Burt has a value of 6.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Burt has a value of 6.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Burt value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Caro

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Caro

9.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Caro has a value of 9.1%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Caro has a value of 9.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Caro has a value of 9.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Caro value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Carsonville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Carsonville

6.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Carsonville has a value of 6.4%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Carsonville has a value of 6.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Carsonville has a value of 6.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Carsonville value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Caseville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Caseville

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Caseville has a value of 0.0%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Caseville has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Caseville has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Caseville value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Cass City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Cass City

2.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Cass City has a value of 2.2%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Cass City has a value of 2.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Cass City has a value of 2.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Cass City value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Chesaning

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Chesaning

12.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Chesaning has a value of 12.5%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Chesaning has a value of 12.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Chesaning has a value of 12.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Chesaning value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Clare

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Clare

8.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Clare, MI County Value (7.4%), Clare has a value of 8.4%.
Clare, MI County Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Clare County value.
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Clare has a value of 8.4%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Clare has a value of 8.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Clare has a value of 8.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Clare value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Coleman

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Coleman

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Midland, MI County Value (5.1%), Coleman has a value of 0.0%.
Midland, MI County Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Midland County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Coleman has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Coleman has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Coleman value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Croswell

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Croswell

10.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Croswell has a value of 10.9%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Croswell has a value of 10.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Croswell has a value of 10.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Croswell value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Deckerville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Deckerville

17.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Deckerville has a value of 17.9%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Deckerville has a value of 17.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Deckerville has a value of 17.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Deckerville value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: East Tawas

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: East Tawas

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), East Tawas has a value of 0.0%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), East Tawas has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), East Tawas has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the East Tawas value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Elkton

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Elkton

2.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Elkton has a value of 2.5%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Elkton has a value of 2.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Elkton has a value of 2.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Elkton value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Essexville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Essexville

1.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Bay, MI County Value (5.2%), Essexville has a value of 1.3%.
Bay, MI County Value
(5.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Bay County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Essexville has a value of 1.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Essexville has a value of 1.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Essexville value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Fairgrove

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Fairgrove

6.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Fairgrove has a value of 6.9%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Fairgrove has a value of 6.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Fairgrove has a value of 6.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Fairgrove value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Farwell

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Farwell

7.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Clare, MI County Value (7.4%), Farwell has a value of 7.0%.
Clare, MI County Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Clare County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Farwell has a value of 7.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Farwell has a value of 7.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Farwell value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Forestville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Forestville

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Forestville has a value of 0.0%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Forestville has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Forestville has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Forestville value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Fostoria

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Fostoria

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Fostoria has a value of 0.0%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Fostoria has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Fostoria has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Fostoria value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Frankenmuth

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Frankenmuth

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Frankenmuth has a value of 0.0%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Frankenmuth has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Frankenmuth has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Frankenmuth value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Freeland

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Freeland

1.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Freeland has a value of 1.6%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Freeland has a value of 1.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Freeland has a value of 1.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Freeland value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Gagetown

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Gagetown

9.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Gagetown has a value of 9.5%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Gagetown has a value of 9.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Gagetown has a value of 9.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Gagetown value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Gladwin

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Gladwin

2.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gladwin, MI County Value (4.3%), Gladwin has a value of 2.3%.
Gladwin, MI County Value
(4.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Gladwin County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Gladwin has a value of 2.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Gladwin has a value of 2.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Gladwin value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Harbor Beach

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Harbor Beach

7.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Harbor Beach has a value of 7.7%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Harbor Beach has a value of 7.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Harbor Beach has a value of 7.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Harbor Beach value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Harrison

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Harrison

10.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Clare, MI County Value (7.4%), Harrison has a value of 10.0%.
Clare, MI County Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Clare County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Harrison has a value of 10.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Harrison has a value of 10.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Harrison value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Hemlock

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Hemlock

4.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Hemlock has a value of 4.8%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Hemlock has a value of 4.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Hemlock has a value of 4.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Hemlock value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Houghton Lake

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Houghton Lake

1.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Roscommon, MI County Value (4.7%), Houghton Lake has a value of 1.5%.
Roscommon, MI County Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Roscommon County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Houghton Lake has a value of 1.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Houghton Lake has a value of 1.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Houghton Lake value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ithaca

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ithaca

14.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), Ithaca has a value of 14.4%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Ithaca has a value of 14.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Ithaca has a value of 14.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Ithaca value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Kinde

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Kinde

23.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Kinde has a value of 23.6%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Kinde has a value of 23.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Kinde has a value of 23.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kinde value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Kingston

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Kingston

18.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Kingston has a value of 18.7%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Kingston has a value of 18.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Kingston has a value of 18.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kingston value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lake Isabella

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lake Isabella

6.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Lake Isabella has a value of 6.2%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Lake Isabella has a value of 6.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Lake Isabella has a value of 6.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Lake Isabella value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lexington

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lexington

12.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Lexington has a value of 12.6%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Lexington has a value of 12.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Lexington has a value of 12.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Lexington value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Loomis

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Loomis

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Loomis has a value of 0.0%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Loomis has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Loomis has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Loomis value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lupton

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Lupton

14.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Ogemaw, MI County Value (8.6%), Lupton has a value of 14.7%.
Ogemaw, MI County Value
(8.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ogemaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Lupton has a value of 14.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Lupton has a value of 14.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Lupton value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Marlette

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Marlette

7.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Marlette has a value of 7.7%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Marlette has a value of 7.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Marlette has a value of 7.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Marlette value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Mayville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Mayville

7.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Mayville has a value of 7.7%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Mayville has a value of 7.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Mayville has a value of 7.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Mayville value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Melvin

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Melvin

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Melvin has a value of 0.0%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Melvin has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Melvin has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Melvin value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Merrill

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Merrill

7.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Merrill has a value of 7.6%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Merrill has a value of 7.6%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Merrill has a value of 7.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Merrill value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Midland

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Midland

5.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Bay, MI County Value (5.2%), Midland has a value of 5.0%.
Bay, MI County Value
(5.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Bay County value.
Compared to the Midland, MI County Value (5.1%), Midland has a value of 5.0%.
Midland, MI County Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Midland County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Midland has a value of 5.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Midland has a value of 5.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Midland value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Millington

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Millington

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Millington has a value of 0.0%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Millington has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Millington has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Millington value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Minden City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Minden City

26.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Minden City has a value of 26.5%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Minden City has a value of 26.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Minden City has a value of 26.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Minden City value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Mount Pleasant

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Mount Pleasant

8.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Mount Pleasant has a value of 8.0%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Mount Pleasant has a value of 8.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Mount Pleasant has a value of 8.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Mount Pleasant value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Oakley

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Oakley

9.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Oakley has a value of 9.9%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Oakley has a value of 9.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Oakley has a value of 9.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Oakley value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Omer

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Omer

12.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Omer has a value of 12.0%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Omer has a value of 12.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Omer has a value of 12.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Omer value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Oscoda

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Oscoda

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), Oscoda has a value of 0.0%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Oscoda has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Oscoda has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Oscoda value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Owendale

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Owendale

5.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Owendale has a value of 5.5%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Owendale has a value of 5.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Owendale has a value of 5.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Owendale value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Peck

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Peck

6.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Peck has a value of 6.0%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Peck has a value of 6.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Peck has a value of 6.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Peck value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Perrinton

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Perrinton

9.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), Perrinton has a value of 9.1%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Perrinton has a value of 9.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Perrinton has a value of 9.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Perrinton value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Pigeon

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Pigeon

9.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Pigeon has a value of 9.0%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Pigeon has a value of 9.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Pigeon has a value of 9.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Pigeon value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Pinconning

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Pinconning

5.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Bay, MI County Value (5.2%), Pinconning has a value of 5.4%.
Bay, MI County Value
(5.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Bay County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Pinconning has a value of 5.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Pinconning has a value of 5.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Pinconning value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Austin

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Austin

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Port Austin has a value of 0.0%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Port Austin has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Port Austin has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Port Austin value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Hope

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Hope

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Port Hope has a value of 0.0%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Port Hope has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Port Hope has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Port Hope value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Sanilac

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Port Sanilac

7.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Port Sanilac has a value of 7.4%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Port Sanilac has a value of 7.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Port Sanilac has a value of 7.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Port Sanilac value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Prescott

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Prescott

16.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Ogemaw, MI County Value (8.6%), Prescott has a value of 16.0%.
Ogemaw, MI County Value
(8.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ogemaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Prescott has a value of 16.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Prescott has a value of 16.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Prescott value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Prudenville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Prudenville

5.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Roscommon, MI County Value (4.7%), Prudenville has a value of 5.7%.
Roscommon, MI County Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Roscommon County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Prudenville has a value of 5.7%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Prudenville has a value of 5.7%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Prudenville value is staying the same.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Reese

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Reese

4.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Reese has a value of 4.4%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Reese has a value of 4.4%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Reese has a value of 4.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Reese has a value of 4.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Reese value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Robin Glen-Indiantown

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Robin Glen-Indiantown

15.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Robin Glen-Indiantown has a value of 15.3%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Robin Glen-Indiantown has a value of 15.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Robin Glen-Indiantown has a value of 15.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Robin Glen-Indiantown value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Roscommon

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Roscommon

2.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Roscommon, MI County Value (4.7%), Roscommon has a value of 2.5%.
Roscommon, MI County Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Roscommon County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Roscommon has a value of 2.5%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Roscommon has a value of 2.5%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Roscommon value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Rose City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Rose City

11.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Ogemaw, MI County Value (8.6%), Rose City has a value of 11.4%.
Ogemaw, MI County Value
(8.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ogemaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Rose City has a value of 11.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Rose City has a value of 11.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Rose City value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Rosebush

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Rosebush

10.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Rosebush has a value of 10.3%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Rosebush has a value of 10.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Rosebush has a value of 10.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Rosebush value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Saginaw

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Saginaw

13.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Saginaw has a value of 13.3%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Saginaw has a value of 13.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Saginaw has a value of 13.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Saginaw value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sand Lake

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sand Lake

6.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), Sand Lake has a value of 6.0%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Sand Lake has a value of 6.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Sand Lake has a value of 6.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Sand Lake value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sandusky

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sandusky

3.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Sandusky has a value of 3.8%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Sandusky has a value of 3.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Sandusky has a value of 3.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Sandusky value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sanford

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sanford

0.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Midland, MI County Value (5.1%), Sanford has a value of 0.9%.
Midland, MI County Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Midland County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Sanford has a value of 0.9%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Sanford has a value of 0.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Sanford value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sebewaing

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sebewaing

1.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Sebewaing has a value of 1.1%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Sebewaing has a value of 1.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Sebewaing has a value of 1.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Sebewaing value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Shepherd

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Shepherd

8.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Shepherd has a value of 8.3%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Shepherd has a value of 8.3%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Shepherd has a value of 8.3%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Shepherd value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Shields

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Shields

2.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Shields has a value of 2.2%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Shields has a value of 2.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Shields has a value of 2.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Shields value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Skidway Lake

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Skidway Lake

16.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Ogemaw, MI County Value (8.6%), Skidway Lake has a value of 16.2%.
Ogemaw, MI County Value
(8.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ogemaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Skidway Lake has a value of 16.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Skidway Lake has a value of 16.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Skidway Lake value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Snover

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Snover

19.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), Snover has a value of 19.0%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Snover has a value of 19.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Snover has a value of 19.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Snover value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Charles

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Charles

22.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), St. Charles has a value of 22.2%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), St. Charles has a value of 22.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), St. Charles has a value of 22.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the St. Charles value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Helen

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Helen

6.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Roscommon, MI County Value (4.7%), St. Helen has a value of 6.0%.
Roscommon, MI County Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Roscommon County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), St. Helen has a value of 6.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), St. Helen has a value of 6.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the St. Helen value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Louis

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: St. Louis

12.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Gratiot, MI County Value (6.9%), St. Louis has a value of 12.4%.
Gratiot, MI County Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Gratiot County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), St. Louis has a value of 12.4%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), St. Louis has a value of 12.4%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the St. Louis value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Standish

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Standish

9.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Standish has a value of 9.0%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Standish has a value of 9.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Standish has a value of 9.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Standish value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sterling

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Sterling

14.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Sterling has a value of 14.2%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Sterling has a value of 14.2%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Sterling has a value of 14.2%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Sterling value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Tawas City

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Tawas City

17.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), Tawas City has a value of 17.0%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Tawas City has a value of 17.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Tawas City has a value of 17.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Tawas City value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Turner

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Turner

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Turner has a value of 0.0%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Turner has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Turner has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Turner value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Twining

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Twining

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Arenac, MI County Value (4.9%), Twining has a value of 0.0%.
Arenac, MI County Value
(4.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Arenac County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Twining has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Twining has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Twining value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ubly

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Ubly

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), Ubly has a value of 0.0%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Ubly has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Ubly has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Ubly value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Unionville

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Unionville

0.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Unionville has a value of 0.8%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Unionville has a value of 0.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Unionville has a value of 0.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Unionville value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Vassar

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Vassar

0.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Tuscola, MI County Value (5.8%), Vassar has a value of 0.8%.
Tuscola, MI County Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Tuscola County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Vassar has a value of 0.8%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Vassar has a value of 0.8%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Vassar value is decreasing, significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Weidman

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Weidman

24.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Isabella, MI County Value (6.5%), Weidman has a value of 24.1%.
Isabella, MI County Value
(6.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Isabella County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Weidman has a value of 24.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Weidman has a value of 24.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Weidman value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: West Branch

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: West Branch

7.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Ogemaw, MI County Value (8.6%), West Branch has a value of 7.1%.
Ogemaw, MI County Value
(8.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ogemaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), West Branch has a value of 7.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), West Branch has a value of 7.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the West Branch value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Whittemore

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Whittemore

4.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Iosco, MI County Value (5.3%), Whittemore has a value of 4.1%.
Iosco, MI County Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Iosco County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Whittemore has a value of 4.1%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Whittemore has a value of 4.1%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Whittemore value is increasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Census Place: Zilwaukee

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Census Place: Zilwaukee

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), Zilwaukee has a value of 0.0%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Compared to the MI Value (4.8%), Zilwaukee has a value of 0.0%.
MI Value
(4.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Zilwaukee has a value of 0.0%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Zilwaukee value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48401

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48401

15.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), 48401 has a value of 15.5%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Over time, the 48401 value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48410

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48410

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), 48410 has a value of 0.0%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48413

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48413

3.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Huron, MI County Value (3.4%), 48413 has a value of 3.2%.
Huron, MI County Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Huron County value.
Over time, the 48413 value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48415

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48415

2.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), 48415 has a value of 2.5%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Over time, the 48415 value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48416

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48416

6.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Sanilac, MI County Value (6.4%), 48416 has a value of 6.8%.
Sanilac, MI County Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Sanilac County value.
Over time, the 48416 value is increasing significantly.
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.

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48417

Current Value:

Children with a Disability Zip Code: 48417

8.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Saginaw, MI County Value (8.5%), 48417 has a value of 8.1%.
Saginaw, MI County Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Saginaw County value.
Over time, the 48417 value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance