Advanced Search: Build a Custom Dashboard
In the fields below, search for indicators by location, topics, population, classification, subgroup, or comparison. No fields are required, but we suggest selecting a location or two to start. In the additional search options section, select options to group and order search results. To learn more about how to customize a dashboard, see our help center.
Visit the Indicator List Page to see the full list of indicators and locations available on the site.
Search Results:
Indicator Gauge Icon Legend
Legend Colors
Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.
Compared to Distribution
the value is in the best half of communities.
the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.
the value is in the worst quarter of communities.
Compared to Target
meets target; 
does not meet target.
Compared to a Single Value
lower than the comparison value;
higher than the comparison value;
not statistically different from comparison value.
Trend
non-significant change over time; 
significant change over time; 
no change over time.
Compared to Prior Value
higher than the previous measurement period;
lower than the previous measurement period;
no statistically different change from previous measurement period.
Health / Alcohol & Drug Use
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
11.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(24.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
15.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(14.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
10.6%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
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.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
14.0%
(2012)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
7.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(9.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
13.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
17.7%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(20.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
6.9%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(10.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
8.8%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(12.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
7.2%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
21.3%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
Teens who Binge Drink: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
10.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.2% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(13.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
13.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
15.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(19.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
13.0%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
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.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
12.1%
(2012)
Compared to:
MI Value
(18.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
12.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(22.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
11.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(9.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
21.9%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(18.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
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.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
10.7%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(9.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
11.0%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(18.2%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(15.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
16.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(18.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
16.1%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
Teens who Use Marijuana: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
13.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.6% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(14.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Disabilities
Children with a Disability County: Bay
Children with a Disability County: Bay
6.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Clare
4.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Gladwin
3.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Gratiot
2.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Huron
6.2%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Iosco
11.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Isabella
6.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Midland
2.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Ogemaw
6.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Roscommon
2.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Saginaw
7.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Sanilac
9.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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
Children with a Disability County: Tuscola
5.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall 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 / Family Planning
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 Region: MiHIA
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 Region: MiHIA
13.9
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(13.9 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(14.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Arenac
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Arenac
31.3
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(29.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Bay
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Bay
18.0
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(13.9 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(13.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Clare
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Clare
27.6
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(16.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(37.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Gladwin
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Gladwin
33.8
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(38.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Gratiot
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Gratiot
19.7
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.8)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(17.4)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(13.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Huron
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Huron
20.5
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(13.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Iosco
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Iosco
49.4
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.8)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(17.4)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(40.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Isabella
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Isabella
7.8
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(13.9 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Midland
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Midland
12.0
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Value
(12.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(13.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(8.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Ogemaw
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Ogemaw
25.6
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(47.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Roscommon
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Roscommon
16.1
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(21.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(43.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Saginaw
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Saginaw
17.6
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(13.9 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(19.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Sanilac
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Sanilac
22.0
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2019)
Compared to:
MI Value
(15.1)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(16.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(21.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Tuscola
Teen Birth Rate: 15-19 County: Tuscola
14.2
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(13.3)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(15.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Prior Value
(16.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teen Pregnancy Rate Region: MiHIA
Teen Pregnancy Rate Region: MiHIA
22.1
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(21.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Arenac
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Arenac
41.9
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(28.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Bay
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Bay
28.7
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(20.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Clare
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Clare
18.3
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(26.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Gladwin
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Gladwin
22.5
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(26.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Gratiot
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Gratiot
15.4
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(17.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Huron
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Huron
15.1
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(12.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Iosco
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Iosco
30.5
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(34.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Isabella
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Isabella
11.8
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(11.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Midland
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Midland
14.2
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(17.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Ogemaw
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Ogemaw
33.7
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(25.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Roscommon
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Roscommon
33.1
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(25.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Saginaw
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Saginaw
30.5
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(30.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Sanilac
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Sanilac
11.8
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(16.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Tuscola
Teen Pregnancy Rate County: Tuscola
15.1
Pregnancies per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 74 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(21.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(24.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(31.4)
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Arenac
32.8%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(28.3%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(21.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Bay
17.2%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(24.4%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(20.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Clare
21.3%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(28.3%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(25.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gladwin
32.4%
(2012)
Compared to:
MI Value
(26.9%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Gratiot
26.5%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(24.4%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(26.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Huron
11.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(24.4%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(27.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Iosco
35.2%
(2014)
Compared to:
MI Value
(26.9%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(34.7%)
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.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Isabella
19.0%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(28.3%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(17.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Midland
35.7%
(2010)
Compared to:
MI Value
(26.9%)
The regional value is compared to the 2013 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Saginaw
23.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(24.4%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(24.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Sanilac
28.4%
(2018)
Compared to:
MI Value
(28.3%)
The regional value is compared to the 2017 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
Teens who are Sexually Active: 9th, 11th Graders County: Tuscola
24.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
MI Value
(24.4%)
The regional value is compared to the 2019 Michigan state value for 9th - 12th graders.
Prior Value
(22.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Health Care Access & Quality
Children with Health Insurance Region: MiHIA
Children with Health Insurance Region: MiHIA
96.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(96.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Arenac
Children with Health Insurance County: Arenac
95.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Bay
Children with Health Insurance County: Bay
96.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Clare
Children with Health Insurance County: Clare
95.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Gladwin
Children with Health Insurance County: Gladwin
95.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Gratiot
Children with Health Insurance County: Gratiot
97.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Huron
Children with Health Insurance County: Huron
96.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Iosco
Children with Health Insurance County: Iosco
96.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(96.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Isabella
Children with Health Insurance County: Isabella
95.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Midland
Children with Health Insurance County: Midland
97.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Ogemaw
Children with Health Insurance County: Ogemaw
95.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(96.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Roscommon
Children with Health Insurance County: Roscommon
96.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Saginaw
Children with Health Insurance County: Saginaw
97.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Sanilac
Children with Health Insurance County: Sanilac
95.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(95.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Children with Health Insurance County: Tuscola
Children with Health Insurance County: Tuscola
97.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
MI Value
(97.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(97.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases
Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children
Value
Compared to:
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children Region: MiHIA
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children Region: MiHIA
69.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(71.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Arenac
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Arenac
71.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(76.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Bay
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Bay
76.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(80.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Clare
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Clare
57.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(61.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Gladwin
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Gladwin
60.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(51.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Gratiot
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Gratiot
71.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(73.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Huron
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Huron
72.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(74.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Iosco
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Iosco
68.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(69.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Isabella
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Isabella
64.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(70.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Midland
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Midland
76.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(78.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Ogemaw
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Ogemaw
63.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(67.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Roscommon
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Roscommon
62.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(68.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Saginaw
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Saginaw
71.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(70.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Sanilac
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Sanilac
58.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(61.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Tuscola
Immunization Status of 19 to 35-Month-Old Children County: Tuscola
65.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(66.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Prior Value
(67.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health
Babies with Low Birthweight Region: MiHIA
Babies with Low Birthweight Region: MiHIA
8.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(8.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Arenac
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Arenac
7.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(5.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Bay
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Bay
9.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(8.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Clare
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Clare
7.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(9.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Gladwin
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Gladwin
6.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(12.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Gratiot
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Gratiot
8.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(7.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Huron
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Huron
6.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(5.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Iosco
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Iosco
9.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(12.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Isabella
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Isabella
7.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(10.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Midland
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Midland
7.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(6.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Ogemaw
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Ogemaw
4.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Roscommon
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Roscommon
7.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Saginaw
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Saginaw
10.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(10.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Sanilac
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Sanilac
7.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(6.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Tuscola
Babies with Low Birthweight County: Tuscola
6.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 72 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(9.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(5.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Infant Mortality Rate Region: MiHIA
Infant Mortality Rate Region: MiHIA
6.4
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(6.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Arenac
Infant Mortality Rate County: Arenac
9.7
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2013-2017)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.8)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(11.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Bay
Infant Mortality Rate County: Bay
4.9
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(5.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Clare
Infant Mortality Rate County: Clare
5.8
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Gladwin
Infant Mortality Rate County: Gladwin
5.0
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(4.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Gratiot
Infant Mortality Rate County: Gratiot
4.2
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Huron
Infant Mortality Rate County: Huron
4.5
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
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.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Iosco
Infant Mortality Rate County: Iosco
10.8
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(11.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Isabella
Infant Mortality Rate County: Isabella
7.2
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(8.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Midland
Infant Mortality Rate County: Midland
3.3
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(2.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Ogemaw
Infant Mortality Rate County: Ogemaw
6.2
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2010-2014)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 61 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.9)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(6.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(6.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Roscommon
Infant Mortality Rate County: Roscommon
7.7
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2007-2011)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 63 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(7.3)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(6.4)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Saginaw
Infant Mortality Rate County: Saginaw
8.8
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(7.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Sanilac
Infant Mortality Rate County: Sanilac
5.0
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(5.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Infant Mortality Rate County: Tuscola
Infant Mortality Rate County: Tuscola
5.8
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(6.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(6.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care
Value
Compared to:
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care Region: MiHIA
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care Region: MiHIA
77.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(75.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Arenac
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Arenac
75.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(73.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Bay
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Bay
78.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(76.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Clare
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Clare
68.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(68.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Gladwin
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Gladwin
67.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(54.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Gratiot
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Gratiot
85.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(83.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Huron
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Huron
78.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(85.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Iosco
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Iosco
74.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(75.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Isabella
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Isabella
78.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(75.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Midland
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Midland
85.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(81.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Ogemaw
Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Ogemaw
70.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Prior Value
(73.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
