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

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents Who Have Been Victims of Violence Their Community

41.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (41.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.3%).
Prior Value
(13.3%)
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 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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (14.9%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(14.9%)

County: Kings Respondents who Have Witnessed Violence their Community

62.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (62.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (40.4%).
Prior Value
(40.4%)
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 (32.2%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(32.2%)

County: Kings

Community / Public Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Public Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who Believe Public Transportation does not Meet Their Needs

16.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (19.3%).
Prior Value
(19.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 Kings County 2023 Target (29.4%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(29.4%)

County: Kings Respondents who feel public transportation has limited locations

42.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (42.3%) 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 feel public transportation has limited times

44.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (49.1%).
Prior Value
(49.1%)
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 Respondents who feel public transportation has long wait times

39.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (39.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (34.1%).
Prior Value
(34.1%)
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 Respondents who feel public transportation has scheduling conflicts

30.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (23.8%).
Prior Value
(23.8%)
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 Respondents who feel public transportation is too expensive

20.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.0%).
Prior Value
(14.0%)
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

Community / Religion & Spirituality

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Religion & Spirituality

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who are interested in joining a church or spiritual community

52.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (52.1%) is greater  than the previously measured value (27.5%).
Prior Value
(27.5%)
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, 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 Attend a Church or Religious Organization Regularly

60.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (60.6%) is greater  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.
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (65.6%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(65.6%)

County: Kings Respondents Who Feel There Are Enough Opportunities and Organizations to Meet Their Spiritual Needs

68.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (68.6%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (65.9%).
Prior Value
(65.9%)
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 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 (72.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(72.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who Turn to a Church or Spiritual Community in Times of Crisis

24.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (24.6%) is less  than the previously measured value (35.3%).
Prior Value
(35.3%)
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

Community / Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Children in Single-Parent Households

Current Value:
24.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 24.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 24.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.4%), Kings has a value of 24.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(22.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.9%), Kings has a value of 24.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 People 65+ Living Alone

Current Value:

County: Kings People 65+ Living Alone

21.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 21.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 21.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 27.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.0%), Kings has a value of 21.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.4%), Kings has a value of 21.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(26.4%)
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 People 65+ Living Alone (Count)

Current Value:
3,351
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 Respondents who stated their internet connection is not reliable

12.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (17.3%).
Prior Value
(17.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who Stated they Have a Home Computer

78.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (78.7%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (77.7%).
Prior Value
(77.7%)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (58.0%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(58.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who Stated they Have a Smartphone in their Household

92.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (92.9%) is less 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, 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 (88.0%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(88.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who use a cable company for their internet

81.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (81.9%) is less  than the previously measured value (89.2%).
Prior Value
(89.2%)
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 use a data plan through a mobile device for their internet

13.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (10.0%).
Prior Value
(10.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who use KingsNet for their internet

18.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.9%) is greater  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.

County: Kings Social Associations

Current Value:

County: Kings Social Associations

3.6
Membership associations per 10,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 3.6 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 6.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 4.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 3.6 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 10.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.9.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (6.0), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(6.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (9.1), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
US Value
(9.1)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.6) is less and worse than the previously measured value (3.8).
Prior Value
(3.8)
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, 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 Substantiated Child Abuse Rate

Current Value:
6.1
Cases per 1,000 children
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.1), Kings has a value of 6.1.
CA Value
(6.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.2), Kings has a value of 6.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.2 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Children's Bureau
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4.7).
Prior Value
(4.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the 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 (8.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.7)

County: Kings

Community / Social Services

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Social Services

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who are aware of 2-1-1 resources

Current Value:
12.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.6%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (25.7%).
Prior Value
(25.7%)
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 Respondents who are aware of Champions resources

25.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (25.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (12.9%).
Prior Value
(12.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who are aware of church or spiritual community resources

41.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (41.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (35.6%).
Prior Value
(35.6%)
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 aware of emergency room resources

28.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28.4%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (38.6%).
Prior Value
(38.6%)
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 aware of Kings County Behavioral Health resources

43.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (43.2%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (38.6%).
Prior Value
(38.6%)
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 aware of Kings View resources

33.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (33.5%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (36.6%).
Prior Value
(36.6%)
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 aware of the suicide hotline resources

42.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (42.1%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (57.4%).
Prior Value
(57.4%)
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 aware of urgent care resources

35.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (35.6%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (34.7%).
Prior Value
(34.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who are aware of Warm Line resources

31.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (31.3%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (15.8%).
Prior Value
(15.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

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

11.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.9%) is greater  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.
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (100%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(100%)

County: Kings Respondents who Receive Services from Kings Community Action Organization

44.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.9%) 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.
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

Community / Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Community / Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Mean Travel Time to Work

Current Value:

County: Kings Mean Travel Time to Work

23.1
Minutes
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 23.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 23.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,131 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (29.2), Kings has a value of 23.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(29.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.7), Kings has a value of 23.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(26.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 need assistance with transportation

13.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13.5%) is greater  than the previously measured value (4.4%).
Prior Value
(4.4%)
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 use Amtrak train

Current Value:
42.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (42.8%) is greater  than the previously measured value (37.6%).
Prior Value
(37.6%)
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 use Corcoran Area Transit (CAT) bus

20.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.5%) is greater  than the previously measured value (17.0%).
Prior Value
(17.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 use Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) Bus

73.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (73.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (70.7%).
Prior Value
(70.7%)
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 Solo Drivers with a Long Commute

Current Value:
30.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 30.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 30.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 41.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (41.6%), Kings has a value of 30.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(41.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.4%), Kings has a value of 30.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(36.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (29.8%).
Prior Value
(29.8%)
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 Workers Commuting by Public Transportation

Current Value:
0.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 0.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.1%.
U.S. Counties
(2015-2019)
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (3.6%), Kings has a value of 0.4% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.8%), Kings has a value of 0.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(3.8%)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

County: Kings Workers who Drive Alone to Work

Current Value:
78.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 78.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 73.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 76.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 78.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 82.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (68.4%), Kings has a value of 78.3% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(68.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (71.7%), Kings has a value of 78.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(71.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Workers who Walk to Work

Current Value:

County: Kings Workers who Walk to Work

1.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 1.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 2.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 1.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 1.5% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 2.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 1.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (2.4%), Kings has a value of 1.5% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.4%), Kings has a value of 1.5% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(2.4%)
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

Economy / Employment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Employment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Employer Establishments

Current Value:

County: Kings Employer Establishments

1,725
Number of Establishments
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1,725) is greater  than the previously measured value (1,707).
Prior Value
(1,707)
Prior 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 Female Population 16+ in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
49.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 49.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 49.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 49.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (57.8%), Kings has a value of 49.2% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(57.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (58.5%), Kings has a value of 49.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(58.5%)
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 Population 16+ in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
45.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 45.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 55.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 49.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 45.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 55.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (59.3%), Kings has a value of 45.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(59.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (59.6%), Kings has a value of 45.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(59.6%)
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 Respondents Who Feel a Lack of Job Skills Have Prevented Them From Obtaining a Job

39.7
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (39.7) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (24.5).
Prior Value
(24.5)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (24.0), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(24.0)

County: Kings Respondents who feel a lack of job skills or education have prevented anyone in their household from obtaining a better paying job

44.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (59.1%).
Prior Value
(59.1%)
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 Respondents Who Had a Member of the Household Experience a Sudden Loss of Income In the Last Two Years

46.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (46.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (34.2%).
Prior Value
(34.2%)
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 (30.8%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(30.8%)

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with employment

18.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (15.7%).
Prior Value
(15.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with job training

16.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.4%).
Prior Value
(10.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents Whose Household Experienced a Major Change in Income

61.0%
Percent of respondents
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (61.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (48.4%).
Prior Value
(48.4%)
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.
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents whose Household Experienced Reduced Work Hours of Wages due to the COVID Pandemic

24.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Size of Labor Force

Current Value:

County: Kings Size of Labor Force

59,899
Persons
(January 2024)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (59,899) is greater and better than the previously measured value (59,353).
Prior Value
(59,353)
Prior 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 Total Employment

Current Value:

County: Kings Total Employment

26,017
Paid Employees
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (26,017) is greater  than the previously measured value (25,988).
Prior Value
(25,988)
Prior 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 Total Employment Change

Current Value:

County: Kings Total Employment Change

0.1%
(2020-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than -4.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than -6.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 0.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than -2.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than -5.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (-5.6%), Kings has a value of 0.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(-5.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (-4.3%), Kings has a value of 0.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(-4.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.1%) is less and worse 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 Unemployed Workers in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
9.9%
(January 2024)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 9.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on non-seasonally-adjusted data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.7%), Kings has a value of 9.9% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(5.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (4.1%), Kings has a value of 9.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(4.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (8.9%).
Prior Value
(8.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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

Economy / Food Insecurity

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Food Insecurity

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Receiving Food Stamp Benefits

Current Value:
37.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 34.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 24.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (31.7%), Kings has a value of 37.3% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(31.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (29.2%).
Prior Value
(29.2%)
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 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 Child Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
17.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 17.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 17.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.5%), Kings has a value of 17.8% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(13.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Kings has a value of 17.8% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (21.0%).
Prior Value
(21.0%)
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 Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance

23%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 23% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 29% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 23% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (34%), Kings has a value of 23% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(34%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (25%), Kings has a value of 23% which is lower and better.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (23%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (19%).
Prior Value
(19%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Food Insecurity Rate

12.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 12.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.5%), Kings has a value of 12.1% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.4%), Kings has a value of 12.1% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.1%) is less and better than the previously measured value (12.6%).
Prior Value
(12.6%)
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, 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 Households Receiving SNAP with Children

Current Value:
67.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (53.1%), Kings has a value of 67.7%.
CA Value
(53.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (47.9%), Kings has a value of 67.7%.
US Value
(47.9%)
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 Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count)

4,930
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
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 Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
21.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 21.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 21.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile 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 23.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.8%), Kings has a value of 21.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (31.6%).
Prior Value
(31.6%)
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 Projected Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
14.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 14.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 14.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.1%), Kings has a value of 14.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.4%) is less and better 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.

County: Kings Respondents Who Feel They Are Able to Access Food Within Their Community

90.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (90.8%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (92.0%).
Prior Value
(92.0%)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (100%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(100%)

County: Kings Respondents Who Feel They Won't Have Enough Food to Feed Their Family

43.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (43.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (18.4%).
Prior Value
(18.4%)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (30.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(30.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who Have Used Food Assistance in the Community

39.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (39.7%) is greater  than the previously measured value (35.5%).
Prior Value
(35.5%)
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 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 food

Current Value:
22.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (16.9%).
Prior Value
(16.9%)
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 Students Eligible for the Free Lunch Program

Current Value:
65.2%
(2022-2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 65.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 51.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 61.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 65.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 47.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 63.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,710 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (52.6%), Kings has a value of 65.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(52.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (42.8%), Kings has a value of 65.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(42.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (65.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (63.6%).
Prior Value
(63.6%)
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

Economy / Homelessness

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Homelessness

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Chronically Homeless

Current Value:

County: Kings Chronically Homeless

83
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (83) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (69).
Prior Value
(69)
Prior 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 Experiencing Homelessness in Kings County

Current Value:
417
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (417) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (313).
Prior Value
(313)
Prior 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 Homeless people with a disability

Current Value:
159
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (159) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (121).
Prior Value
(121)
Prior 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 Homeless Veterans of the Armed Forces

Current Value:
27
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (27) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (19).
Prior Value
(19)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 Individuals who slept in emergency shelter

Current Value:
80
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (80) is less and better than the previously measured value (98).
Prior Value
(98)
Prior 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 Individuals who slept in transitional housing

Current Value:
27
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (27) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (24).
Prior Value
(24)
Prior 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 Individuals who slept in unsheltered location

Current Value:
310
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (310) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (191).
Prior Value
(191)
Prior 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

Economy / Housing & Homes

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Housing & Homes

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Homeowner Vacancy Rate

Current Value:

County: Kings Homeowner Vacancy Rate

2.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 2.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 2.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (0.9%), Kings has a value of 2.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(0.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.1%), Kings has a value of 2.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(1.1%)
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 Homeownership

Current Value:

County: Kings Homeownership

51.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 51.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 51.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (51.4%), Kings has a value of 51.4%.
CA Value
(51.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (57.8%), Kings has a value of 51.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(57.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Median Household Gross Rent

Current Value:
$1,201
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $1,201 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $1,289 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $1,919.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($1,856), Kings has a value of $1,201 which is lower and better.
CA Value
($1,856)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($1,268), Kings has a value of $1,201 which is lower and better.
US Value
($1,268)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Median Monthly Owner Costs for Households without a Mortgage

$531
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $531 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $652 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $773.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($732), Kings has a value of $531 which is lower and better.
CA Value
($732)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($584), Kings has a value of $531 which is lower and better.
US Value
($584)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Mortgaged Owners Median Monthly Household Costs

$1,721
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $1,721 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $2,128 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $2,724.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($2,759), Kings has a value of $1,721 which is lower and better.
CA Value
($2,759)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($1,828), Kings has a value of $1,721 which is lower and better.
US Value
($1,828)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Mortgaged Owners Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Housing

37.2%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 37.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 29.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (37.6%), Kings has a value of 37.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(37.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (27.8%), Kings has a value of 37.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(27.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (28.1%).
Prior Value
(28.1%)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.5%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

County: Kings Overcrowded Households

Current Value:

County: Kings Overcrowded Households

8.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 8.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.4% 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 the CA Value (8.2%), Kings has a value of 8.3% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(8.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.3%), Kings has a value of 8.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(3.3% in 2016-2020)
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 Renters Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Rent

45.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 45.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 53.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 45.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 44.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 49.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (54.4%), Kings has a value of 45.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(54.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (49.9%), Kings has a value of 45.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(49.9%)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.5%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

County: Kings Respondents who Need Assistance with Affordable Housing

24.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (24.6%) is greater  than the previously measured value (18.1%).
Prior Value
(18.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents with 1-2 people in their household

Current Value:
19.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (19.8%) is less  than the previously measured value (28.4%).
Prior Value
(28.4%)
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 Unaccompanied youth who are homeless

Current Value:
13
People
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7).
Prior Value
(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

Economy / Housing Affordability & Supply

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Housing Affordability & Supply

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who are Currently Having Trouble Paying Rent or Mortgage

43.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (43.0%) 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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (21.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(21.0%)

County: Kings Respondents Who Are Having Trouble Affording an Apartment or House in Their Community

59.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (59.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (23.6%).
Prior Value
(23.6%)
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 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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (32.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(32.0%)

County: Kings Respondents Who Are Having Trouble Paying Their Utility Bills

45.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (45.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (18.1%).
Prior Value
(18.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (28.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(28.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who currently live in a shared housing situation due to lack of affordable housing

44.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with home repairs

12.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (18.9%).
Prior Value
(18.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with shelter

Current Value:
7.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.7%) is greater and better 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.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with utilities assistance

20.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.5%).
Prior Value
(14.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings

Economy / Income

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Income

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Gender Pay Gap

Current Value:

County: Kings Gender Pay Gap

$0.70
Cents on the dollar
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $0.70 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $0.72 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $0.69.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($0.74), Kings has a value of $0.70 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
($0.74)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($0.72), Kings has a value of $0.70 which is lower and worse.
US Value
($0.72)
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 Households Above the Federal Poverty Level and Below the Real Cost Measure

28.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 28.0% which is in the worst 25% 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 26.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 34 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (24.0%), Kings has a value of 28.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Kings Households Below the Real Cost Measure

Current Value:
42.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 42.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 34 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (34.0%), Kings has a value of 42.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(34.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Kings Households that are Above the Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) Threshold

46.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 46.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (57.0%), Kings has a value of 46.1% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(57.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (46.1%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (55.3%).
Prior Value
(55.3%)
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 Households that are Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE)

37.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (31.0%), Kings has a value of 37.8% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(31.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (28.7%).
Prior Value
(28.7%)
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 Income Inequality

Current Value:

County: Kings Income Inequality

0.413
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.413 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.461 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 0.481.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 0.413 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.445 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 0.470.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (0.490), Kings has a value of 0.413 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.490)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (0.483), Kings has a value of 0.413 which is lower and better.
US Value
(0.483)
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 Median Household Income

Current Value:

County: Kings Median Household Income

$68,540
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $68,540 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $76,148 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $63,996.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of $68,540 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $60,831 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $52,521.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value ($91,905), Kings has a value of $68,540 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
($91,905)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($75,149), Kings has a value of $68,540 which is lower and worse.
US Value
($75,149)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Per Capita Income

Current Value:

County: Kings Per Capita Income

$26,193
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of $26,193 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $37,717 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $32,012.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of $26,193 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $32,340 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $28,112.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value ($45,591), Kings has a value of $26,193 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
($45,591)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($41,261), Kings has a value of $26,193 which is lower and worse.
US Value
($41,261)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 reported annual household incomes of $12,000 or less

6.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.4%) is less  than the previously measured value (8.5%).
Prior Value
(8.5%)
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 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 reported annual household incomes of between $12,000 to $16,000

6.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (5.5%).
Prior Value
(5.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $16,000 to $20,000

5.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (5.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (4.0%).
Prior Value
(4.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the 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 reported annual household incomes of between $20,000 to $25,000

8.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (8.6%) is greater  than the previously measured value (4.6%).
Prior Value
(4.6%)
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 reported annual household incomes of between $25,000 to $30,000

4.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4.1%) is less  than the previously measured value (7.6%).
Prior Value
(7.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $30,000 to $35,000

6.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.0%) is less  than the previously measured value (8.2%).
Prior Value
(8.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $35,000 to $40,000

7.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.6%) is less  than the previously measured value (10.1%).
Prior Value
(10.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $40,000 to $50,000

11.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.6%) is less  than the previously measured value (12.0%).
Prior Value
(12.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $50,000 to $65,000

12.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.7%) 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 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 reported annual household incomes of between $65,000 to $80,000

12.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (10.3%).
Prior Value
(10.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of between $80,000 to $100,000

8.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (8.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (7.4%).
Prior Value
(7.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
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 reported annual household incomes of over $100,000

11.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.1%) is less  than the previously measured value (13.3%).
Prior Value
(13.3%)
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, 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 whose household experienced a decrease in income

59.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents whose household experienced an increase in income

40.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings

Economy / Investment & Personal Finance

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Investment & Personal Finance

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults who Feel Overwhelmed by Financial Burdens

40.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 40.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 37.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 40.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (36.8%), Kings has a value of 40.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(36.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (37.6%), Kings has a value of 40.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(37.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (40.0%) 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.

County: Kings Households that Used Check Cashing, Cash Advance, or Title Loan Shops

2.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 2.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (2.3%), Kings has a value of 2.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(2.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.2%), Kings has a value of 2.4% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(2.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (3.0%).
Prior Value
(3.0%)
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 Households with a 401k Plan

Current Value:
36.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 36.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 40.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 35.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (44.0%), Kings has a value of 36.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(44.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (40.1%), Kings has a value of 36.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(40.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.7%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (39.7%).
Prior Value
(39.7%)
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 Households with a Savings Account

Current Value:
68.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 68.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 71.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 68.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 68.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 66.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (73.3%), Kings has a value of 68.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(73.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (71.1%), Kings has a value of 68.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(71.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (68.0%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (70.5%).
Prior Value
(70.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Households with Student Loan Debt

Current Value:
10.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 10.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (11.3%), Kings has a value of 10.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.3%), Kings has a value of 10.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(10.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (11.5%).
Prior Value
(11.5%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with household budgeting

16.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.0%).
Prior Value
(10.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings

Economy / Poverty

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Economy / Poverty

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Children Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
56.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 56.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 56.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 36.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (35.4%), Kings has a value of 56.3% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(35.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.5%), Kings has a value of 56.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(36.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (56.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (52.7%).
Prior Value
(52.7%)
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 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 Children Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
23.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 23.0% which is in the worst 25% 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 21.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 23.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (15.6%), Kings has a value of 23.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(15.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.7%), Kings has a value of 23.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(16.7%)
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 Families Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
35.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 35.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 29.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 35.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.5%), Kings has a value of 35.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(22.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (22.7%), Kings has a value of 35.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(22.7%)
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 Families Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
13.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 13.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 13.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,104 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.5%), Kings has a value of 13.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.8%), Kings has a value of 13.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(8.8%)
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 Households Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
16.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 16.2% which is in the worst 25% 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 15.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (12.0%), Kings has a value of 16.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.2%) is greater and worse 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 People 65+ Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
28.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 28.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 27.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 28.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (27.7%), Kings has a value of 28.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(27.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (28.0%), Kings has a value of 28.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(28.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (29.4%).
Prior Value
(29.4%)
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 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 People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
11.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 11.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile 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 12.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 11.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile 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 12.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 11.9% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.0%), Kings has a value of 11.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(10.0%)
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 People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level (Count)

Current Value:
1,846
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 People Living 200% Above Poverty Level

Current Value:
59.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 59.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.7% 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 U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 59.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 66.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 59.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (72.0%), Kings has a value of 59.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(72.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (71.2%), Kings has a value of 59.8% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(71.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 People Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
40.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 40.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 31.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (28.0%), Kings has a value of 40.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(28.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (28.8%), Kings has a value of 40.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(28.8%)
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 People Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
16.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 16.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 16.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.1%), Kings has a value of 16.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.5%), Kings has a value of 16.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.5%)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.0%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.0%)

County: Kings Youth not in School or Working

Current Value:
2.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 2.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 2.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,130 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (1.5%), Kings has a value of 2.6% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(1.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.8%), Kings has a value of 2.6% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(1.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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

Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with education support

7.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.8%).
Prior Value
(6.8%)
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 need assistance with tutoring

Current Value:
3.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (4.6%).
Prior Value
(4.6%)
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

Education / Childcare & Early Childhood Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Education / Childcare & Early Childhood Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Child Care Centers

Current Value:

County: Kings Child Care Centers

3.6
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 3.6 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 5.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (8.1), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(8.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (3.6).
Prior Value
(3.6)
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 feel affordability is a barrier preventing them from utilizing childcare

26.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who feel childcare is affordable

Current Value:
78.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (78.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (43.0%).
Prior Value
(43.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Kings Respondents who feel location is a barrier preventing them from utilizing childcare

15.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who feel operational hours is a barrier preventing them from utilizing childcare

23.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who feel there are enough childcare options and locations

75.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (75.8%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (34.4%).
Prior Value
(34.4%)
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 feel transportation is a barrier preventing them from utilizing childcare

19.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with childcare

Current Value:
12.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.7%) is greater and worse 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 need assistance with preschool

Current Value:
10.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.4%) is greater and worse than 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.

County: Kings Respondents who Use Childcare in the Community

Current Value:
47.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (47.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (17.8%).
Prior Value
(17.8%)
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.
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who utilize center-based childcare

Current Value:
61.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who utilize home-based childcare

Current Value:
38.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has  been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings

Education / Educational Attainment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Education / Educational Attainment

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings People 25+ with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Current Value:
14.7%
(2018-2022)
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 higher than 24.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 19.0%.
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 worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 20.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 16.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (35.9%), Kings has a value of 14.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(35.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (34.3%), Kings has a value of 14.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(34.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.