Skip to main content
Search for Indicators

All Data

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

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

Compared to Distribution

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

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

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

Compared to Target

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

Compared to a Single Value

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

Trend

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

Compared to Prior Value

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

More information about the gauges and icons

County: Kings

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding

Current Value:
60.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 60.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 72.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (68.5%), Kings has a value of 60.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (60.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (57.0%).
Prior Value
(57.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Infant Mortality Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Infant Mortality Rate

4.6
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (4.2), Kings has a value of 4.6 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(4.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.6), Kings has a value of 4.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(5.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4.1).
Prior Value
(4.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.0), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Kings Mothers who Breastfeed

Current Value:

County: Kings Mothers who Breastfeed

89.1%
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 89.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 95.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 92.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (93.8%), Kings has a value of 89.1% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (89.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (89.8%).
Prior Value
(89.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Current Value:
88.3%
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 88.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (87.9%), Kings has a value of 88.3% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(87.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (78.3%), Kings has a value of 88.3% which is higher and better.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (88.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (84.1%).
Prior Value
(84.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Preterm Births

Current Value:

County: Kings Preterm Births

9.5%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (9.0%), Kings has a value of 9.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(9.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (9.3%).
Prior Value
(9.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (9.4%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(9.4%)

County: Kings

Health / Medications & Prescriptions

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Medications & Prescriptions

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults who Bought Medications for Anxiety or Depression

16.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (13.7%), Kings has a value of 16.1%.
CA Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.9%), Kings has a value of 16.1%.
US Value
(14.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.1%) is greater  than the previously measured value (16.0%).
Prior Value
(16.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings

Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Ever Diagnosed with Depression

Current Value:
18.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 18.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 18.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (19.5%), Kings has a value of 18.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(19.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services

51.0%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 51.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (55.9%), Kings has a value of 51.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(55.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (51.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (55.2%).
Prior Value
(55.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults Who Ever Thought Seriously About Committing Suicide

22.1%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 22.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 20.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (19.0%), Kings has a value of 22.1% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(19.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (17.4%).
Prior Value
(17.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults with Likely Serious Psychological Distress

20.8%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 20.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.7%), Kings has a value of 20.8% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.5%).
Prior Value
(16.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Suicide

Current Value:
14.2
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 14.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 47 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 14.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.4.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,307 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.5), Kings has a value of 14.2 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.9), Kings has a value of 14.2 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(13.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.6).
Prior Value
(15.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (12.8), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(12.8)
<div>MHMD-01: Reduce the suicide rate <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Kings Depression: Medicare Population

Current Value:
11.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 11.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 11.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (14.0%), Kings has a value of 11.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.0%), Kings has a value of 11.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (11.0%).
Prior Value
(11.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Frequent Mental Distress

Current Value:

County: Kings Frequent Mental Distress

14.1%
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 14.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 14.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.0%), Kings has a value of 14.1% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Kings has a value of 14.1% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.0%).
Prior Value
(15.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Households that Received Mental Healthcare Services

9.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (9.5%), Kings has a value of 9.7%.
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.8%), Kings has a value of 9.7%.
US Value
(8.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.7%) is greater  than the previously measured value (9.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Mental Health Provider Rate

Current Value:
236
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 236 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 401 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 259.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 236 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 137 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,956 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (450), Kings has a value of 236 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(450)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (236) is greater and better than the previously measured value (224).
Prior Value
(224)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Poor Mental Health: 14+ Days

Current Value:
17.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 17.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 17.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (14.7%), Kings has a value of 17.4% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(14.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Respondents who Agreed Suicide has Seriously Affected Their Lives

34.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (11.7%).
Prior Value
(11.7%)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (9.9%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(9.9%)

County: Kings Respondents who are Able to Access Mental Health Services

70.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (70.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (55.2%).
Prior Value
(55.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to an inability to find a provider

37.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (45.8%).
Prior Value
(45.8%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to finances

34.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.6%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to having no insurance

21.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (25.4%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to lack of transportation

26.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (26.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (3.4%).
Prior Value
(3.4%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to not being covered by insurance

10.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (25.4%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to provider hours

33.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (33.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (13.6%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to stigma

22.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.6%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents Who Have Experienced an Increase in Mental Health Symptoms in Past Two Years

60.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (60.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (47.9%).
Prior Value
(47.9%)
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.
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who have experienced increased mental health symptoms but do not know where to receive mental health care

22.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (24.4%).
Prior Value
(24.4%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who have experienced increased mental health symptoms but have not received mental health care

40.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (40.5%) is less and better than the previously measured value (61.4%).
Prior Value
(61.4%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who have increased mental health symptoms due to the COVID-19 pandemic

57.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (57.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (55.2%).
Prior Value
(55.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who Have Used Mental Health Services in the Community

30.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (14.1%).
Prior Value
(14.1%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Mortality Data

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Mortality Data

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Life Expectancy

Current Value:

County: Kings Life Expectancy

77.3
Years
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 77.3 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 78.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 76.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 77.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.6.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,070 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (79.9), Kings has a value of 77.3 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(79.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (77.6), Kings has a value of 77.3 which is lower and worse.
US Value
(77.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings

Health / Nutrition & Healthy Eating

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Nutrition & Healthy Eating

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults who Drink Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Current Value:
23.9%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (13.7%), Kings has a value of 23.9% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (23.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (17.7%).
Prior Value
(17.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Adults who Frequently Cook Meals at Home

Current Value:
72.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 72.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 77.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 74.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (78.2%), Kings has a value of 72.9% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (78.0%), Kings has a value of 72.9% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (72.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (66.1%).
Prior Value
(66.1%)
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.

County: Kings Adults Who Frequently Used Quick Service Restaurants: Past 30 Days

44.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 44.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 39.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 41.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 44.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 36.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (40.9%), Kings has a value of 44.6% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(40.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (40.4%), Kings has a value of 44.6% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(40.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (44.9%).
Prior Value
(44.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Child and Teen Fruit Consumption

Current Value:
57.3%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 57.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (69.8%), Kings has a value of 57.3% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(69.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (57.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (60.9%).
Prior Value
(60.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Number of Summer Meals Served

Current Value:
62,339
Meals
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (62,339) is greater and better than the previously measured value (59,851).
Prior Value
(59,851)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Number of Summer Meals Sites

Current Value:
28
Sites
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28) is greater and better than the previously measured value (27).
Prior Value
(27)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who are not familiar with healthy food available in the community

14.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7.1%).
Prior Value
(7.1%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't feel full when eating healthy food

8.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (8.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (9.5%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't have anywhere to prepare healthy food

14.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (2.4%).
Prior Value
(2.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't have time to cook healthy food

24.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (24.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (20.3%).
Prior Value
(20.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't have transportation to access healthy food

11.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (1.2%).
Prior Value
(1.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't know how to cook healthy food

16.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.6%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.6%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't know how to select healthy food when in the store

18.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.6%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.8%).
Prior Value
(10.8%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who don't like the taste of healthy food

12.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (5.7%).
Prior Value
(5.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who feel healthy food goes bad before they can finish it

30.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (24.8%).
Prior Value
(24.8%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who feel healthy food is too expensive

45.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (45.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (44.7%).
Prior Value
(44.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who feel there are no places to buy healthy food near their home

12.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (13.0%).
Prior Value
(13.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with nutrition education

12.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.6%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who Stated They Eat Healthy Food Most of the Time

20.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.2%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (41.9%).
Prior Value
(41.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (72.9%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(72.9%)

County: Kings Respondents whose family doesn't like healthy food

9.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (10.2%).
Prior Value
(10.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Older Adults

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Older Adults

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females

26.5%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 26.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 31.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 28.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 26.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 36.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 33.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), Kings has a value of 26.5% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males

32.5%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 32.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 38.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 35.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 32.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 42.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), Kings has a value of 32.5% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults 65+ with a Disability

Current Value:
41.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (33.5%), Kings has a value of 41.6%.
CA Value
(33.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.3%), Kings has a value of 41.6%.
US Value
(33.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults 65+ with a Hearing Difficulty

Current Value:
16.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (12.9%), Kings has a value of 16.6%.
CA Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.7%), Kings has a value of 16.6%.
US Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults 65+ with a Self-Care Difficulty

Current Value:
10.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (9.5%), Kings has a value of 10.9%.
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.4%), Kings has a value of 10.9%.
US Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults 65+ with a Vision Difficulty

Current Value:
7.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.1%), Kings has a value of 7.7%.
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Kings has a value of 7.7%.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults 65+ with an Independent Living Difficulty

19.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (16.4%), Kings has a value of 19.7%.
CA Value
(16.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.6%), Kings has a value of 19.7%.
US Value
(13.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Alzheimer's Disease or Dementia: Medicare Population

6.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.0%), Kings has a value of 6.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Kings has a value of 6.0%.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.0%).
Prior Value
(6.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Elder Index (Elderly Household Below Income Threshold)

37.0%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (27.7%), Kings has a value of 37.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(27.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (31.1%).
Prior Value
(31.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Oral Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Oral Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss

Current Value:
12.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 12.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), Kings has a value of 12.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults who Visited a Dentist

Current Value:
55.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 55.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 62.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 55.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), Kings has a value of 55.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Children who Visited a Dentist

Current Value:
91.5%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (89.5%), Kings has a value of 91.5% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(89.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (91.5%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (92.8%).
Prior Value
(92.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Dentist Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Dentist Rate

63
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 63 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 80 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 63 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 43 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 27.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,054 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (93), Kings has a value of 63 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(93)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (63) is greater and better than the previously measured value (60).
Prior Value
(60)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Other Conditions

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Other Conditions

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Visited a Dermatologist

Current Value:
12.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (17.1%), Kings has a value of 12.1%.
CA Value
(17.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.9%), Kings has a value of 12.1%.
US Value
(15.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.1%).
Prior Value
(12.1%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults with Arthritis

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults with Arthritis

19.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 19.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 19.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (25.2%), Kings has a value of 19.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(25.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults with Kidney Disease

Current Value:
3.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 3.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 3.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (3.1%), Kings has a value of 3.1%.
US Value
(3.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Chronic Kidney Disease: Medicare Population

Current Value:
20.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 20.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 20.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.0%), Kings has a value of 20.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (18.0%), Kings has a value of 20.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (19.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Osteoporosis: Medicare Population

Current Value:
9.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (9.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Rheumatoid Arthritis or Osteoarthritis: Medicare Population

31.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 31.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 31.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 33.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 31.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 38.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (32.0%), Kings has a value of 31.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(32.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (35.0%), Kings has a value of 31.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(35.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (31.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (29.0%).
Prior Value
(29.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Physical Activity

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Physical Activity

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults 20+ who are Sedentary

Current Value:
15.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 15.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 15.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (22.7%).
Prior Value
(22.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults Who Belong to a Fitness Club or Gym

Current Value:
14.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (18.7%), Kings has a value of 14.1%.
CA Value
(18.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.0%), Kings has a value of 14.1%.
US Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.1%) is less  than the previously measured value (15.2%).
Prior Value
(15.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Adults who Follow a Regular Exercise Routine

Current Value:
61.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 61.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 66.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (69.3%), Kings has a value of 61.2% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(69.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (67.2%), Kings has a value of 61.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(67.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (61.2%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (49.4%).
Prior Value
(49.4%)
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.

County: Kings

Health / Prevention & Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Prevention & Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Firearms

Current Value:
7.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 7.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 45 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 7.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.4.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,083 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.4), Kings has a value of 7.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(7.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0), Kings has a value of 7.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.7).
Prior Value
(7.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (10.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(10.7)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Unintentional Injuries

48.2
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 48.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 53.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 70.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (43.4), Kings has a value of 48.2 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(43.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (57.6), Kings has a value of 48.2 which is lower and better.
US Value
(57.6 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (48.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (46.5).
Prior Value
(46.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (43.2), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(43.2)

County: Kings

Health / Respiratory Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Respiratory Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Bought Medications for Asthma

Current Value:
7.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.3%), Kings has a value of 7.4%.
CA Value
(6.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.6%), Kings has a value of 7.4%.
US Value
(6.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.4%).
Prior Value
(7.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults with Asthma

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults with Asthma

16.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 16.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (17.0%), Kings has a value of 16.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(17.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.7%), Kings has a value of 16.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (20.9%).
Prior Value
(20.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults with COPD

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults with COPD

6.1%
Percent of adults
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 6.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (6.4%), Kings has a value of 6.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults with Current Asthma

Current Value:
10.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (9.7%), Kings has a value of 10.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(9.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Asthma: Medicare Population

Current Value:
9.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (8.0%).
Prior Value
(8.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings COPD: Medicare Population

Current Value:
10.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.0%), Kings has a value of 10.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 10.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (9.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Sexually Transmitted Infections

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Sexually Transmitted Infections

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Chlamydia Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Chlamydia Incidence Rate

675.1
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 675.1 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 344.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 485.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (484.7), Kings has a value of 675.1 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(484.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (495.5), Kings has a value of 675.1 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(495.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (675.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (652.7).
Prior Value
(652.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Congenital Syphilis Incidence Rate

Current Value:
268.5
Cases per 100,000 live births
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 268.5 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 46.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 151.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (114.9), Kings has a value of 268.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(114.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (268.5) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (95.2).
Prior Value
(95.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (33.9), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(33.9)

County: Kings Death Rate Among Persons with Diagnosed HIV Infection

1.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 1.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (5.4), Kings has a value of 1.9 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(5.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.9) is less and better than the previously measured value (5.2).
Prior Value
(5.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Gonorrhea Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Gonorrhea Incidence Rate

210.9
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 210.9 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 140.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 212.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (230.9), Kings has a value of 210.9 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(230.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (214.0), Kings has a value of 210.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(214.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (210.9) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (203.6).
Prior Value
(203.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings HIV Diagnosis Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings HIV Diagnosis Rate

7.0
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 7.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (12.2), Kings has a value of 7.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.0) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.4).
Prior Value
(6.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rate: 13+

Current Value:
168.7
Cases per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (414.1), Kings has a value of 168.7.
CA Value
(414.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (168.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (163.8).
Prior Value
(163.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Persons Living and Diagnosed with HIV who are in Care

64.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 64.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 76.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 71.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (73.7%), Kings has a value of 64.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(73.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (64.8%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (64.1%).
Prior Value
(64.1%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Persons Living with HIV Rate

Current Value:
136.4
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (355.6), Kings has a value of 136.4.
CA Value
(355.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (136.4) is greater  than the previously measured value (97.2).
Prior Value
(97.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Syphilis Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Syphilis Incidence Rate

17.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 17.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (22.3), Kings has a value of 17.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.2), Kings has a value of 17.6 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(16.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.6) is less and better than the previously measured value (21.3).
Prior Value
(21.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Tobacco Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Tobacco Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Bought Medications to Quit Smoking

Current Value:
1.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (1.2%), Kings has a value of 1.5%.
CA Value
(1.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.4%), Kings has a value of 1.5%.
US Value
(1.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.5%) is less  than the previously measured value (1.6%).
Prior Value
(1.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults who Smoke

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults who Smoke

12.7%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (6.1%), Kings has a value of 12.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Kings has a value of 12.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.0% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.7%).
Prior Value
(12.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Kings Adults Who Used Electronic Cigarettes: Past 30 Days

7.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 7.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 7.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.5%), Kings has a value of 7.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(5.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.9%), Kings has a value of 7.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(5.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults Who Used Smokeless Tobacco: Past 30 Days

1.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 1.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 1.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (1.0%), Kings has a value of 1.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(1.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.7%), Kings has a value of 1.7%.
US Value
(1.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (1.8%).
Prior Value
(1.8%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Teens who Smoke: 11th Graders

Current Value:
3.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.0%), Kings has a value of 3.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(2.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (8.0%).
Prior Value
(8.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Teens who Smoke: 7th Graders

Current Value:
0.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (1.0%), Kings has a value of 0.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (1.0%).
Prior Value
(1.0%)
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.

County: Kings Teens who Smoke: 9th Graders

Current Value:
2.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.0%), Kings has a value of 2.0%.
CA Value
(2.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (4.0%).
Prior Value
(4.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings

Health / Weight Status

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Weight Status

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings 5th Grade Students who are Overweight or Obese

Current Value:
47.2%
(2018-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 47.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 40.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (41.3%), Kings has a value of 47.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(41.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (47.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (45.5%).
Prior Value
(45.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings 9th Grade Students who are Overweight or Obese

Current Value:
42.4%
(2018-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 42.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (37.8%), Kings has a value of 42.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(37.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (42.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (43.1%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults Happy with Weight

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults Happy with Weight

44.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 44.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 47.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 46.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (50.4%), Kings has a value of 44.6% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(50.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (48.7%), Kings has a value of 44.6% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(48.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.6%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (47.7%).
Prior Value
(47.7%)
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.

County: Kings Adults Who Are Obese

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults Who Are Obese

32.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 32.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 38.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (28.8%), Kings has a value of 32.1% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(28.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.6%), Kings has a value of 32.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(33.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Kings (32.1%) is less and better than the previously measured value (50.5%).
Prior Value
(50.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults who are Overweight or Obese

Current Value:
72.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 72.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 66.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 71.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (62.3%), Kings has a value of 72.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(62.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (67.7%), Kings has a value of 72.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(67.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Kings (72.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (78.2%).
Prior Value
(78.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Children who are Overweight for Age

Current Value:
15.7%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (13.9%), Kings has a value of 15.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(13.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.6%).
Prior Value
(15.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Health / Wellness & Lifestyle

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Wellness & Lifestyle

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adult Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better

80.7%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 80.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 81.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (85.0%), Kings has a value of 80.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(85.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (80.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (81.7%).
Prior Value
(81.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Adults who Agree Vaccine Benefits Outweigh Possible Risks

63.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 63.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 65.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 63.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (73.0%), Kings has a value of 63.4% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(73.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (70.1%), Kings has a value of 63.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(70.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (63.4%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (68.4%).
Prior Value
(68.4%)
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.

County: Kings Adults who Feel Life is Slipping Out of Control

27.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 27.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (26.6%), Kings has a value of 27.9% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(26.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.7%), Kings has a value of 27.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(26.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (27.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (30.7%).
Prior Value
(30.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Adults with Medical Conditions Limiting Lifestyle

31.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (31.9%), Kings has a value of 31.9%.
CA Value
(31.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.6%), Kings has a value of 31.9%.
US Value
(33.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (31.9%) is less  than the previously measured value (33.8%).
Prior Value
(33.8%)
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.

County: Kings Child and Teen Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better

96.7%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (96.8%), Kings has a value of 96.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(96.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (96.7%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (93.6%).
Prior Value
(93.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Frequent Physical Distress

Current Value:
14.7%
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 14.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 14.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.3%), Kings has a value of 14.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(11.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0%), Kings has a value of 14.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.6%).
Prior Value
(15.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Poor Physical Health: 14+ Days

Current Value:
13.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 13.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 13.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (10.9%), Kings has a value of 13.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(10.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better

83.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 83.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (86.0%), Kings has a value of 83.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(86.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (83.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (82.9%).
Prior Value
(82.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Poor or Fair

21.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 21.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 21.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (16.1%), Kings has a value of 21.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(16.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings

Health / Women's Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Women's Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Visited an OB/GYN

Current Value:
15.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (16.6%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
CA Value
(16.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.7%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
US Value
(15.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.3%) is less  than the previously measured value (16.1%).
Prior Value
(16.1%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Community / Children's Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Children's Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with youth activities

11.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (14.7%).
Prior Value
(14.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings

Community / Civic Engagement

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Civic Engagement

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Voter Engagement

Current Value:

County: Kings Voter Engagement

48.3%
Percent of adults
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 48.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 71.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (66.2%), Kings has a value of 48.3% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(66.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (48.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (53.7%).
Prior Value
(53.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Voter Turnout: Presidential Election

Current Value:
74.0%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 74.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (80.7%), Kings has a value of 74.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(80.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (74.0%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (67.2%).
Prior Value
(67.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (58.4%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(58.4%)
<div>SDOH-07: Increase the proportion of the voting-age citizens who vote</div>

County: Kings

Community / Community & Business Resources

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Community & Business Resources

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who turn to a counselor in times of crisis

23.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (23.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (16.6%).
Prior Value
(16.6%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who turn to a doctor in times of crisis

17.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (12.2%).
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.

County: Kings Respondents who turn to a school/education facility in times of crisis

6.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.7%) is greater  than the previously measured value (2.9%).
Prior Value
(2.9%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who turn to law enforcement in times of crisis

17.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.6%) is greater  than the previously measured value (10.8%).
Prior Value
(10.8%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who turn to social services in times of crisis

27.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (27.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (14.3%).
Prior Value
(14.3%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who turn to the job training office in times of crisis

14.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.5%) is greater  than the previously measured value (7.0%).
Prior Value
(7.0%)
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.

County: Kings

Community / Crime & Crime Prevention

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Crime & Crime Prevention

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adult Arrest Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Adult Arrest Rate

49.9
Arrests per 1,000 population 18+
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 49.9 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 28.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 37.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (25.1), Kings has a value of 49.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(25.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (49.9) is less and better than the previously measured value (62.9).
Prior Value
(62.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Homicide

Current Value:
6.5
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 32 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 6.5 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.3.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 495 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.1), Kings has a value of 6.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(5.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.6), Kings has a value of 6.5 which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.1).
Prior Value
(5.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.5), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.5)
<div>IVP-09: Reduce homicides <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Kings Deaths in Custody

Current Value:

County: Kings Deaths in Custody

2.9
Per 10,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (0.3), Kings has a value of 2.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(0.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2.9) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (2.6).
Prior Value
(2.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Hate Crime Offenses

Current Value:

County: Kings Hate Crime Offenses

4*
Offenses
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4).
Prior Value
(4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Juvenile Arrest Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Juvenile Arrest Rate

7.1
Arrests per 1,000 population aged 0-17
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 7.1 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (2.8), Kings has a value of 7.1 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(2.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (5.3).
Prior Value
(5.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with working with law enforcement

10.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (2.0%).
Prior Value
(2.0%)
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.

County: Kings Violent Crime Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Violent Crime Rate

425.8
Crimes per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 425.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 449.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 621.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (493.1), Kings has a value of 425.8 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(493.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (380.7), Kings has a value of 425.8 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(380.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Federal Bureau of Investigation
Compared to the prior value, Kings (425.8) is less and better than the previously measured value (446.6).
Prior Value
(446.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Community / Demographics

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Demographics

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Average Household Size

Current Value:

County: Kings Average Household Size

3.20
Persons per household
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.90), Kings has a value of 3.20.
CA Value
(2.90)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.60), Kings has a value of 3.20.
US Value
(2.60)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Foreign Born Persons

Current Value:

County: Kings Foreign Born Persons

18.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (26.5%), Kings has a value of 18.5%.
CA Value
(26.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.7%), Kings has a value of 18.5%.
US Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Population Over Age 65 (Count)

Current Value:
15,971
People
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Residential Segregation - Black/White

Current Value:
36.3
Score
(2024)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 36.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 55.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 64.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 52 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 36.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 50.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 60.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,076 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (58.0), Kings has a value of 36.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(58.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (62.7), Kings has a value of 36.3 which is lower and better.
US Value
(62.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (35.8).
Prior Value
(35.8)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents between 18-24 Years Old

Current Value:
7.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.2%) is greater  than the previously measured value (5.3%).
Prior Value
(5.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who Answered in English

Current Value:
96.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (96.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (90.3%).
Prior Value
(90.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree or Higher

34.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (30.2%).
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (33.2%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(33.2%)

County: Kings Respondents who Identify as Male

Current Value:
32.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (32.6%) is greater  than the previously measured value (13.4%).
Prior Value
(13.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who Live in Hanford

Current Value:
39.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (39.4%) is less  than the previously measured value (47.6%).
Prior Value
(47.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Veteran Population

Current Value:

County: Kings Veteran Population

7.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (4.7%), Kings has a value of 7.9%.
CA Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.6%), Kings has a value of 7.9%.
US Value
(6.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Community / Domestic Violence & Abuse

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Domestic Violence & Abuse

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who Have Been Victims of Violence in their Homes

34.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (11.6%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (11.7%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(11.7%)

County: Kings Respondents who Have Used Victim Services in the Community

18.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.2%) is greater  than the previously measured value (5.2%).
Prior Value
(5.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents Who Have Witnessed Violence In their Home

37.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.4%).
Prior Value
(13.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (11.5%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(11.5%)

County: Kings

Community / Family Structure

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Family Structure

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who Have Used Family and Parenting Services in the Community

22.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (8.7%).
Prior Value
(8.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who Live Alone

Current Value:
4.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4.4%) is less  than the previously measured value (5.6%).
Prior Value
(5.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with parenting classes

8.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (8.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (5.0%).
Prior Value
(5.0%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents with 3-5 people in their household

Current Value:
65.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (65.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (54.0%).
Prior Value
(54.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Respondents with 6 or more people in their household

14.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.4%) is greater  than the previously measured value (8.6%).
Prior Value
(8.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions

14.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 14.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.7), Kings has a value of 14.6 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0), Kings has a value of 14.6 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.0 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.4).
Prior Value
(15.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (10.1), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(10.1)

County: Kings Alcohol-Impaired Driving Deaths

Current Value:
36.5%
Percent of driving deaths with alcohol involvement
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 36.5% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 36.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 33.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,116 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (26.7%), Kings has a value of 36.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(26.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.3%), Kings has a value of 36.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(26.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (35.0%).
Prior Value
(35.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Kings Bicycle-Involved Collision Rate

Current Value:
0.0
Collisions per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.0.
CA Counties
(2022)
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (0.3), Kings has a value of 0.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.0) is less and better than the previously measured value (11.2).
Prior Value
(11.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.