Skip to main content

Advanced Search: Build a Custom Dashboard

In the fields below, search for indicators by location, topics, population, classification, subgroup, or comparison. No fields are required, but we suggest selecting a location or two to start. In the additional search options section, select options to group and order search results. To learn more about how to customize a dashboard, see our help center.

Visit the Indicator List Page to see the full list of indicators and locations available on the site.

  • Map View
  • All Counties
  • County : Ashland Census Tracts
  • County : Ashland Zip Codes
  • County : Ashtabula Census Tracts
  • County : Ashtabula Zip Codes
  • County : Cuyahoga Census Tracts
  • County : Cuyahoga Zip Codes
  • County : Geauga Census Tracts
  • County : Geauga Zip Codes
  • County : Lake Census Tracts
  • County : Lake Zip Codes
  • County : Lorain Census Tracts
  • County : Lorain Zip Codes
  • County : Medina Census Tracts
  • County : Medina Zip Codes
  • County : Portage Census Tracts
  • County : Portage Zip Codes
  • County : Summit Census Tracts
  • County : Summit Zip Codes
  • All Health Topics
  • All Community Topics
  • All Economy Topics
  • All Education Topics
  • All Environmental Health Topics
Search display options:

Search Results:

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

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

Compared to Distribution

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

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

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

Compared to Target

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

Compared to a Single Value

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

Trend

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

Compared to Prior Value

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

More information about the gauges and icons

Economy / Housing & Homes

Economy / Housing & Homes

Economy / Housing & Homes

County: Cuyahoga

Value
Compared to:

Economy / Housing & Homes

County: Cuyahoga

Value
Compared to:

County: Cuyahoga Mortgaged Owners Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Housing

25.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to U.S. Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 25.0% which is in the best 50% 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 OH Value (20.6%), Cuyahoga has a value of 25.0% which is higher and worse.
OH Value
(20.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (27.8%), Cuyahoga has a value of 25.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(27.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Cuyahoga (25.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (23.7%).
Prior Value
(23.7%)
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 Cuyahoga 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  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

County: Cuyahoga Overcrowded Households

Current Value:

County: Cuyahoga Overcrowded Households

1.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to OH Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 1.2% which is in the best 50% 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 1.8%.
OH Counties
The distribution is based on data from 88 Ohio counties.
Compared to the OH Value (1.4%), Cuyahoga has a value of 1.2% which is lower and better.
OH Value
(1.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (3.4%), Cuyahoga has a value of 1.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Cuyahoga 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: Cuyahoga Renters Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Rent

47.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to OH Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 47.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 41.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 46.6%.
OH Counties
The distribution is based on data from 88 Ohio counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 47.4% 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 OH Value (44.5%), Cuyahoga has a value of 47.4% which is higher and worse.
OH Value
(44.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (49.9%), Cuyahoga has a value of 47.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(49.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Cuyahoga 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: Cuyahoga Severe Housing Problems

Current Value:

County: Cuyahoga Severe Housing Problems

15.9%
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to OH Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 15.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.5%.
OH Counties
The distribution is based on data from 88 Ohio counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Cuyahoga has a value of 15.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the OH Value (12.8%), Cuyahoga has a value of 15.9% which is higher and worse.
OH Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (16.7%), Cuyahoga has a value of 15.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Cuyahoga (15.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.3%).
Prior Value
(16.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Cuyahoga 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.

Economy / Housing & Homes

Census Place: Cleveland

Value
Compared to:

Economy / Housing & Homes

Census Place: Cleveland

Value
Compared to:

Census Place: Cleveland Mortgaged Owners Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Housing

34.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to U.S. Counties, Cleveland has a value of 34.6% which is in the worst 25% of census places. Census places in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.2% while census places 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 Cuyahoga, OH County Value (25.0%), Cleveland has a value of 34.6% which is higher and worse.
Cuyahoga, OH County Value
(25.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Cuyahoga County value.
Compared to the OH Value (20.6%), Cleveland has a value of 34.6% which is higher and worse.
OH Value
(20.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (27.8%), Cleveland has a value of 34.6% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(27.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.5%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

Census Place: Cleveland Overcrowded Households

Current Value:

Census Place: Cleveland Overcrowded Households

1.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to OH Census Places, Cleveland has a value of 1.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census places. Census places in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.3% while census places in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.6%.
OH Census Places
The distribution is based on data from 1,211 locales.
Compared to the Cuyahoga, OH County Value (1.2%), Cleveland has a value of 1.4% which is higher and worse.
Cuyahoga, OH County Value
(1.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Cuyahoga County value.
Compared to the OH Value (1.4%), Cleveland has a value of 1.4%.
OH Value
(1.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (3.4%), Cleveland has a value of 1.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Census Place: Cleveland Renters Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Rent

Current Value:
51.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to OH Census Places, Cleveland has a value of 51.2% which is in the worst 25% of census places. Census places in the best 50% have a value lower than 40.0% while census places in the worst 25% have a value higher than 51.1%.
OH Census Places
The distribution is based on data from 1,139 locales.
Compared to U.S. Census Places, Cleveland has a value of 51.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census places. Census places in the best 50% have a value lower than 44.2% while census places in the worst 25% have a value higher than 57.1%.
U.S. Census Places
The distribution is based on data from 26,241 U.S. Census Places.
Compared to the Cuyahoga, OH County Value (47.4%), Cleveland has a value of 51.2% which is higher and worse.
Cuyahoga, OH County Value
(47.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Cuyahoga County value.
Compared to the OH Value (44.5%), Cleveland has a value of 51.2% which is higher and worse.
OH Value
(44.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Ohio State value.
Compared to the US Value (49.9%), Cleveland has a value of 51.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(49.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Cleveland 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%)