This badge answers one question: can Chandler's own trend be trusted as a real improvement? The trend passed all three checks, so yes. The most recent 12 months agree with the multi-year trend.
Violent crime fell about 1% over the 12 months ending July 2026, slower than 58% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latestper 100k | Changelast 12 months | Sig. | Change rank | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. (RTCI sample) ref | 456 (Apr 26) | -9.3% | |||
| Greensboro, NC | 578 (Jul 26) | -29.9% | 1st | ||
| Toledo, OH | 747 (Jun 26) | -26.4% | 2nd | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 525 (Jul 26) | -26.0% | 3rd | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 363 (Jun 26) | -25.0% | 4th | ||
| Laredo, TX | 277 (Jul 26) | -18.4% | 5th | ||
| Garland, TX | 184 (Jul 26) | -16.8% | 6th | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 470 (Jul 26) | -11.3% | 7th | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 267 (Jul 26) | -4.9% | 8th | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 491 (Jul 26) | -4.7% | 9th | ||
| Irving, TX | 259 (Jul 26) | -4.7% | 10th | ||
| Durham, NC | 535 (Jul 26) | -4.7% | 11th | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 1,217 (Jul 26) | -4.4% | 12th | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 775 (Apr 26) | -4.3% | 13th | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 833 (Apr 26) | -2.6% | 14th | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 504 (Jun 26) | -1.9% | 15th | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 118 (Jul 26) | -1.5% | 16th | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 365 (Jul 26) | -1.5% | 17th | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 123 (Jul 26) | -0.8% | 18th | ||
| Madison, WI | 227 (Jul 26) | +0.2% | 19th | ||
| Plano, TX | 145 (Jul 26) | +1.0% | 20th | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 404 (Jul 26) | +1.9% | 21st | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 177 (Jul 26) | +4.9% | 22nd | ||
| Reno, NV | 512 (May 26) | +6.8% | 23rd | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 338 (Jul 26) | +8.1% | 24th | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 702 (May 26) | +8.9% | 25th | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 367 (Jun 26) | +15.1% | 26th | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 117 (May 26) | +18.4% | 27th |
This badge answers one question: can Chandler's own trend be trusted as a real improvement? The trend passed all three checks, so yes. The most recent 12 months agree with the multi-year trend.
Property crime fell about 16% over the 12 months ending July 2026, faster than 81% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latestper 100k | Changelast 12 months | Sig. | Change rank | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. (RTCI sample) ref | 1,987 (Apr 26) | -12.2% | |||
| Reno, NV | 1,827 (May 26) | -24.9% | 1st | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 2,445 (Jul 26) | -22.4% | 2nd | ||
| Irving, TX | 1,576 (Jul 26) | -20.8% | 3rd | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 2,001 (Jul 26) | -19.3% | 4th | ||
| Laredo, TX | 994 (Jul 26) | -18.9% | 5th | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 1,146 (Jul 26) | -16.1% | 6th | ||
| Plano, TX | 1,114 (Jul 26) | -15.5% | 7th | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 2,129 (Jun 26) | -15.2% | 8th | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 1,686 (Jul 26) | -14.4% | 9th | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 1,807 (Jul 26) | -13.5% | 10th | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 843 (Jul 26) | -13.1% | 11th | ||
| Toledo, OH | 2,403 (Jun 26) | -12.6% | 12th | ||
| Garland, TX | 1,529 (Jul 26) | -12.3% | 13th | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 1,697 (Jul 26) | -12.2% | 14th | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 2,833 (Apr 26) | -8.2% | 15th | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 3,646 (Jul 26) | -7.8% | 16th | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 1,690 (Jul 26) | -7.7% | 17th | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 2,847 (Jun 26) | -7.7% | 18th | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 1,495 (Jul 26) | -6.9% | 19th | ||
| Durham, NC | 3,535 (Jul 26) | -6.6% | 20th | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 1,593 (Jun 26) | -6.1% | 21st | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 4,964 (Jul 26) | -5.3% | 22nd | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 1,080 (Jul 26) | -1.4% | 23rd | ||
| Madison, WI | 1,956 (Jul 26) | -1.3% | 24th | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 684 (May 26) | -0.5% | 25th | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 2,766 (Jul 26) | +1.1% | 26th | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 3,445 (May 26) | +1.3% | 27th |
The most recent 12 months moved against the better direction, whatever the longer window shows. The checks below judge the multi-year window. Chandler is also worsening faster than most of the selected peers.
Homicides rose about 50% over the 12 months ending July 2026, faster than 88% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latestper 100k | Changelast 12 months | Sig. | Change rank | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. (RTCI sample) ref | 6 (Apr 26) | -17.8% | |||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 0 (Jun 26) | -95.8% | 1st | ||
| Reno, NV | 0 (May 26) | -94.4% | 2nd | ||
| Plano, TX | 0 (Jul 26) | -66.5% | 3rd | ||
| Irving, TX | 1 (Jul 26) | -62.4% | 4th | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 1 (Jul 26) | -60.0% | 5th | ||
| Garland, TX | 2 (Jul 26) | -58.4% | 6th | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 3 (Jun 26) | -42.9% | 7th | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 8 (May 26) | -41.6% | 8th | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 1 (Jul 26) | -40.1% | 9th | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 8 (Jul 26) | -40.0% | 10th | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 3 (Jul 26) | -39.9% | 11th | ||
| Laredo, TX | 2 (Jul 26) | -37.4% | 12th | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 15 (Jul 26) | -31.3% | 13th | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 10 (Jul 26) | -22.2% | 14th | ||
| Durham, NC | 9 (Jul 26) | -22.2% | 15th | ||
| Madison, WI | 2 (Jul 26) | -14.3% | 16th | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 3 (Jul 26) | -9.1% | 17th | ||
| Toledo, OH | 9 (Jun 26) | -8.0% | 18th | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 51 (Jul 26) | +5.2% | 19th | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 7 (Jul 26) | +11.1% | 20th | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 2 (May 26) | +24.7% | 21st | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 11 (Apr 26) | +27.1% | 22nd | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 11 (Jun 26) | +29.6% | 23rd | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 1 (Jul 26) | +50.5% | 24th | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 3 (Jul 26) | +75.2% | 25th | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 5 (Jul 26) | +133.2% | 26th | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 3 (Jul 26) | +899.7% | 27th |
This badge answers one question: can Chandler's own trend be trusted as a real improvement? The trend passed all three checks, so yes. The most recent 12 months agree with the multi-year trend.
Vehicle theft fell about 14% over the 12 months ending July 2026, slower than 65% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latestper 100k | Changelast 12 months | Sig. | Change rank | History |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. (RTCI sample) ref | 303 (Apr 26) | -22.2% | |||
| Plano, TX | 63 (Jul 26) | -42.6% | 1st | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 230 (Jun 26) | -41.8% | 2nd | ||
| Garland, TX | 203 (Jul 26) | -34.5% | 3rd | ||
| Irving, TX | 221 (Jul 26) | -33.5% | 4th | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 614 (Jul 26) | -32.3% | 5th | ||
| Laredo, TX | 98 (Jul 26) | -31.8% | 6th | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 431 (Jun 26) | -30.6% | 7th | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 389 (Jul 26) | -30.1% | 8th | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 44 (Jul 26) | -29.2% | 9th | ||
| Reno, NV | 238 (May 26) | -27.7% | 10th | ||
| Durham, NC | 451 (Jul 26) | -23.9% | 11th | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 203 (Jul 26) | -20.7% | 12th | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 26 (May 26) | -20.5% | 13th | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 183 (Jul 26) | -19.2% | 14th | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 203 (Jul 26) | -18.7% | 15th | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 413 (May 26) | -17.9% | 16th | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 114 (Jul 26) | -17.6% | 17th | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 74 (Jul 26) | -14.1% | 18th | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 168 (Jul 26) | -13.6% | 19th | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 88 (Jul 26) | -12.4% | 20th | ||
| Toledo, OH | 414 (Jun 26) | -8.4% | 21st | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 392 (Jul 26) | -7.1% | 22nd | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 379 (Jun 26) | -6.7% | 23rd | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 1,174 (Jul 26) | -4.1% | 24th | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 340 (Apr 26) | -3.3% | 25th | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 272 (Jul 26) | -2.6% | 26th | ||
| Madison, WI | 120 (Jul 26) | +12.0% | 27th |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods clears the combined published margin AND is big enough to matter next to the peer spread.
Household income rose about 30% between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from $82,925 to $108,095 (each survey's own dollars, not adjusted for inflation) - more than the combined survey margin (±$3,423).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | $79,964 | +36% | |||||
| United States ref | $80,734 | +28% | |||||
| Santa Ana, CA | $93,999 | 9th | +42% | 1st | 20% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | $81,619 | 11th | +39% | 2nd | 5% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | $97,710 | 7th | +38% | 3rd | 25% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | $80,760 | 12th | +37% | 4th | 3% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | $65,742 | 21st | +35% | 5th | 16% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | $63,915 | 22nd | +34% | 6th | 18% below peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | $50,041 | 29th | +34% | 7th | 36% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | $73,530 | 18th | +34% | 8th | 6% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | $80,648 | 13th | +33% | 9th | 3% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | $79,542 | 14th | +33% | 10th | 2% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | $108,032 | 5th | +33% | 11th | 38% above peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | $75,192 | 17th | +32% | 12th | 4% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | $49,724 | 30th | +32% | 13th | 36% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | $108,095 | 4th | +30% | 14th | 38% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | $52,909 | 28th | +30% | 15th | 32% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | $59,268 | 26th | +30% | 16th | 24% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | $56,160 | 27th | +28% | 17th | 28% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | $73,394 | 19th | +27% | 18th | 6% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | $122,551 | 1st | +27% | 19th | 57% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | $81,830 | 10th | +26% | 20th | 5% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | $110,886 | 3rd | +26% | 21st | 42% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | $61,515 | 23rd | +26% | 22nd | 21% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | $76,320 | 16th | +25% | 23rd | 2% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | $71,867 | 20th | +24% | 24th | 8% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | $61,422 | 24th | +24% | 25th | 21% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | $103,284 | 6th | +22% | 26th | 32% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | $95,373 | 8th | +21% | 27th | 22% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | $60,895 | 25th | +21% | 28th | 22% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | $78,050 | 15th | +19% | 29th | on par with peers | ||
| Plano, TX | $112,253 | 2nd | +17% | 30th | 44% above peers |
The most recent 12 months moved against the better direction, whatever the longer window shows. The checks below judge the multi-year window. Chandler is also worsening faster than most of the selected peers.
Unemployment rose 0.5 percentage points over the 12 months ending July 2026, faster than 83% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latest | Today's rank | Changelast 12 months | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 4.9% (Jul 26) | +0.6pp | ||||
| United States ref | 4.1% (Aug 26) | -0.2pp | ||||
| Toledo, OH | 4.8% (Jul 26) | 24th | -3.0pp | 1st | 12% above peers | |
| Cincinnati, OH | 3.9% (Jul 26) | 8th | -1.6pp | 2nd | 9% below peers | |
| Jersey City, NJ | 4.2% (Jul 26) | 11th | -1.1pp | 3rd | 2% below peers | |
| St. Louis, MO | 4.4% (Jul 26) | 17th | -0.7pp | 4th | 2% above peers | |
| Fort Wayne, IN | 3.4% (Jul 26) | 4th | -0.6pp | 5th | 21% below peers | |
| Greensboro, NC | 4.4% (Jul 26) | 18th | -0.6pp | 6th | 2% above peers | |
| North Las Vegas, NV | 5.6% (Jul 26) | 29th | -0.5pp | 7th | 30% above peers | |
| Winston-Salem, NC | 4.2% (Jul 26) | 12th | -0.5pp | 8th | 2% below peers | |
| Santa Ana, CA | 4.2% (Jul 26) | 13th | -0.5pp | 9th | 2% below peers | |
| Reno, NV | 3.9% (Jul 26) | 9th | -0.4pp | 10th | 9% below peers | |
| Chula Vista, CA | 5.1% (Jul 26) | 28th | -0.3pp | 11th | 19% above peers | |
| Durham, NC | 3.4% (Jul 26) | 5th | -0.3pp | 12th | 21% below peers | |
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 3.2% (Jul 26) | 3rd | -0.3pp | 13th | 26% below peers | |
| Lincoln, NE | 2.6% (Jul 26) | 1st | -0.3pp | 14th | 40% below peers | |
| Laredo, TX | 4.8% (Jul 26) | 25th | -0.1pp | 15th | 12% above peers | |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 3.7% (Jul 26) | 7th | -0.1pp | 16th | 14% below peers | |
| Madison, WI | 2.9% (Jul 26) | 2nd | +0.2pp | 17th | 33% below peers | |
| Buffalo, NY | 5.7% (Jul 26) | 30th | +0.2pp | 18th | 33% above peers | |
| Chesapeake, VA | 3.6% (Jul 26) | 6th | +0.2pp | 19th | 16% below peers | |
| Irving, TX | 4.2% (Jul 26) | 14th | +0.3pp | 20th | 2% below peers | |
| Glendale, AZ | 4.9% (Jul 26) | 26th | +0.3pp | 21st | 14% above peers | |
| Lubbock, TX | 4.4% (Jul 26) | 19th | +0.4pp | 22nd | 2% above peers | |
| Garland, TX | 4.5% (Jul 26) | 20th | +0.4pp | 23rd | 5% above peers | |
| Gilbert, AZ | 4.1% (Jul 26) | 10th | +0.5pp | 24th | 5% below peers | |
| Chandler, AZ | 4.3% (Jul 26) | 16th | +0.5pp | 25th | on par with peers | |
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 5.0% (Jul 26) | 27th | +0.5pp | 26th | 16% above peers | |
| Plano, TX | 4.5% (Jul 26) | 21st | +0.5pp | 27th | 5% above peers | |
| St. Petersburg, FL | 4.2% (Jul 26) | 15th | +0.5pp | 28th | 2% below peers | |
| Saint Paul, MN | 4.6% (Jul 26) | 23rd | +0.7pp | 29th | 7% above peers | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | 4.5% (Jul 26) | 22nd | +0.8pp | 30th | 5% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Poverty changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (7.6% then, 7.9% now; margin ±0.9pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 12.5% | -2.7pp | |||||
| United States ref | 12.4% | ||||||
| Santa Ana, CA | 10.8% | 9th | -4.9pp | 1st | 17% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 11.7% | 11th | -4.2pp | 2nd | 10% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 20.9% | 27th | -5.8pp | 3rd | 60% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 15.6% | 18th | -3.3pp | 4th | 20% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 15.1% | 17th | -3.1pp | 5th | 16% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 17.7% | 23rd | -3.0pp | 6th | 36% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 26.0% | 30th | -4.1pp | 7th | 99% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 12.1% | 12th | -1.7pp | 8th | 7% below peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 11.0% | 10th | -1.2pp | 9th | 15% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 8.8% | 5th | -0.9pp | 10th | 33% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 15.6% | 19th | -1.5pp | 11th | 20% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 17.0% | 22nd | -1.5pp | 12th | 31% above peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 12.4% | 13th | -0.9pp | 13th | 4% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 12.7% | 14th | -0.8pp | 14th | 3% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 18.9% | 24th | -1.2pp | 15th | 45% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 12.7% | 15th | -0.8pp | 16th | 2% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 20.6% | 26th | -1.2pp | 17th | 58% above peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 24.3% | 28th | -1.1pp | 18th | 87% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 7.3% | 3rd | -0.3pp | 19th | 44% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 25.5% | 29th | -0.8pp | 20th | 95% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 16.4% | 21st | -0.5pp | 21st | 26% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 20.1% | 25th | -0.4pp | 22nd | 54% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 13.0% | 16th | -0.1pp | 23rd | on par with peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 8.9% | 6th | -0.1pp | 24th | 31% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 5.3% | 1st | -0.0pp | 25th | 60% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 6.8% | 2nd | -0.0pp | 26th | 48% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 16.0% | 20th | +0.1pp | 27th | 23% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 7.9% | 4th | +0.3pp | 28th | 39% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 9.5% | 8th | +0.5pp | 29th | 27% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 9.4% | 7th | +0.8pp | 30th | 28% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Child poverty changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (9.5% then, 10.0% now; margin ±1.5pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 16.2% | -5.3pp | |||||
| United States ref | 16.1% | ||||||
| Santa Ana, CA | 14.6% | 11th | -8.8pp | 1st | 17% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 16.6% | 15th | -7.9pp | 2nd | 6% below peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 15.4% | 13th | -5.2pp | 3rd | 13% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 20.2% | 18th | -6.8pp | 4th | 14% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 28.3% | 25th | -8.5pp | 5th | 60% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 35.5% | 28th | -10.4pp | 6th | 101% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 8.4% | 3rd | -2.2pp | 7th | 52% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 22.0% | 20th | -5.6pp | 8th | 25% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 25.9% | 24th | -6.1pp | 9th | 46% above peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 10.8% | 6th | -2.3pp | 10th | 39% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 12.5% | 7th | -2.4pp | 11th | 29% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 29.7% | 26th | -4.2pp | 12th | 68% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 23.5% | 22nd | -3.2pp | 13th | 33% above peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 17.7% | 16th | -2.2pp | 14th | on par with peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 10.0% | 5th | -1.2pp | 15th | 43% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 20.1% | 17th | -1.9pp | 16th | 14% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 5.0% | 1st | -0.4pp | 17th | 71% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 22.9% | 21st | -1.9pp | 18th | 30% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 36.2% | 30th | -2.7pp | 19th | 105% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 20.3% | 19th | -1.5pp | 20th | 15% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 16.4% | 14th | -1.2pp | 21st | 7% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 7.9% | 2nd | -0.5pp | 22nd | 55% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 14.9% | 12th | -0.8pp | 23rd | 15% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 13.6% | 9th | -0.6pp | 24th | 23% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 36.0% | 29th | -0.8pp | 25th | 104% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 23.8% | 23rd | -0.3pp | 26th | 35% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 9.9% | 4th | +0.4pp | 27th | 44% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 30.8% | 27th | +3.7pp | 28th | 75% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 13.9% | 10th | +2.1pp | 29th | 21% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 12.8% | 8th | +2.7pp | 30th | 28% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods clears the combined published margin AND is big enough to matter next to the peer spread.
Broadband rose 3.5 percentage points between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 91.9% to 95.4% - more than the combined survey margin (±0.7pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 91.7% | +7.3pp | |||||
| United States ref | 91.1% | ||||||
| Laredo, TX | 87.5% | 28th | +18.9pp | 1st | 5% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 91.0% | 19th | +17.9pp | 2nd | 2% below peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 88.6% | 26th | +13.7pp | 3rd | 4% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 86.9% | 30th | +12.5pp | 4th | 6% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 89.3% | 23rd | +9.6pp | 5th | 3% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 88.5% | 27th | +9.2pp | 6th | 4% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 87.2% | 29th | +9.0pp | 7th | 6% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 88.8% | 25th | +8.8pp | 8th | 4% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 88.9% | 24th | +8.8pp | 9th | 4% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 90.6% | 21st | +8.8pp | 10th | 2% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 92.5% | 15th | +8.6pp | 11th | on par with peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 93.2% | 10th | +8.6pp | 12th | 1% above peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 92.2% | 16th | +7.9pp | 13th | on par with peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 92.8% | 12th | +7.4pp | 14th | on par with peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 90.8% | 20th | +6.9pp | 15th | 2% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 92.6% | 14th | +6.8pp | 16th | on par with peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 93.7% | 9th | +6.7pp | 17th | 1% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 91.8% | 17th | +6.2pp | 18th | 1% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 89.7% | 22nd | +5.8pp | 19th | 3% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 94.9% | 6th | +6.2pp | 20th | 3% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 94.8% | 7th | +6.1pp | 21st | 2% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 92.9% | 11th | +5.1pp | 22nd | on par with peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 95.0% | 5th | +4.7pp | 23rd | 3% above peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 94.6% | 8th | +4.5pp | 24th | 2% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 96.3% | 3rd | +3.8pp | 25th | 4% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 95.4% | 4th | +3.5pp | 26th | 3% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 91.5% | 18th | +2.8pp | 27th | 1% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 96.7% | 2nd | +2.6pp | 28th | 4% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 92.8% | 13th | +2.5pp | 29th | on par with peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 97.0% | 1st | +1.1pp | 30th | 5% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Inequality changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (0.42 then, 0.42 now; margin ±0.01).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 0.46 | -0.003 | |||||
| United States ref | 0.48 | +0.001 | |||||
| Laredo, TX | 0.45 | 16th | -0.025 | 1st | on par with peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 0.43 | 9th | -0.023 | 2nd | 5% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 0.45 | 14th | -0.015 | 3rd | on par with peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 0.51 | 26th | -0.016 | 4th | 12% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 0.51 | 27th | -0.010 | 5th | 12% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 0.40 | 4th | -0.006 | 6th | 10% below peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 0.50 | 24th | -0.007 | 7th | 11% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 0.49 | 22nd | -0.005 | 8th | 9% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 0.46 | 17th | -0.003 | 9th | 2% above peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 0.40 | 3rd | -0.001 | 10th | 11% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 0.50 | 25th | -0.001 | 11th | 12% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 0.45 | 13th | -0.001 | 12th | 1% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 0.42 | 7th | -0.001 | 13th | 7% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 0.48 | 20th | -0.000 | 14th | 6% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 0.44 | 12th | +0.001 | 15th | 2% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 0.52 | 28th | +0.001 | 16th | 16% above peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 0.43 | 10th | +0.001 | 17th | 4% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 0.54 | 30th | +0.003 | 18th | 20% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 0.42 | 8th | +0.003 | 19th | 6% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 0.45 | 15th | +0.003 | 20th | on par with peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 0.44 | 11th | +0.004 | 21st | 3% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 0.49 | 21st | +0.006 | 22nd | 9% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 0.47 | 18th | +0.007 | 23rd | 4% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 0.40 | 2nd | +0.008 | 24th | 11% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 0.41 | 5th | +0.009 | 25th | 9% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 0.42 | 6th | +0.009 | 26th | 7% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 0.48 | 19th | +0.011 | 27th | 6% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 0.39 | 1st | +0.013 | 28th | 13% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 0.50 | 23rd | +0.016 | 29th | 10% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 0.52 | 29th | +0.019 | 30th | 16% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is within the margin, but each of the last 3 annual releases moved the 5-year average the same way. Direction is a reliable early signal; its size is not.
SNAP changed less than the survey can measure between the 2014-2018 and 2019-2023 surveys (5.5% then, 5.3% now; margin ±0.8pp). The newest releases lean upward: each of the last 3 annual updates moved the 5-year average the same way - an early signal, not a measured change.*
| Place | Latest2019-2023 survey | Today's rank | Change2014-2018 → 2019-2023 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 10.1% | -1.7pp | |||||
| United States ref | 11.8% | -0.5pp | |||||
| Irving, TX | 6.2% | 5th | -2.8pp | 1st | 45% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 11.3% | 15th | -4.7pp | 2nd | on par with peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 9.1% | 10th | -3.8pp | 3rd | 20% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 8.8% | 8th | -3.6pp | 4th | 22% below peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 2.3% | 1st | -0.9pp | 5th | 79% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 9.3% | 12th | -2.7pp | 6th | 18% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 11.4% | 17th | -2.9pp | 7th | on par with peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 14.0% | 19th | -2.9pp | 8th | 23% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 15.0% | 20th | -2.9pp | 9th | 32% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 3.4% | 2nd | -0.6pp | 10th | 70% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 18.0% | 26th | -3.3pp | 11th | 59% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 18.3% | 27th | -2.6pp | 12th | 61% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 23.9% | 29th | -3.3pp | 13th | 110% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 29.9% | 30th | -3.9pp | 14th | 163% above peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 22.3% | 28th | -2.7pp | 15th | 96% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 15.4% | 22nd | -1.9pp | 16th | 36% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 11.4% | 16th | -1.3pp | 17th | on par with peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 15.1% | 21st | -1.2pp | 18th | 33% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 16.5% | 23rd | -0.7pp | 19th | 45% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 6.9% | 6th | -0.3pp | 20th | 39% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 5.3% | 4th | -0.2pp | 21st | 53% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 10.7% | 14th | -0.1pp | 22nd | 6% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 8.9% | 9th | -0.0pp | 23rd | 21% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 8.8% | 7th | +0.1pp | 24th | 23% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 12.2% | 18th | +0.8pp | 25th | 8% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 17.4% | 25th | +1.8pp | 26th | 53% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 9.2% | 11th | +1.0pp | 27th | 19% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 3.4% | 3rd | +0.5pp | 28th | 70% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 17.2% | 24th | +3.0pp | 29th | 51% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 10.6% | 13th | +2.0pp | 30th | 7% below peers |
This metric has no declared better direction; the badge reports the last 12 months' movement and its speed next to the selected peers. Chandler is falling faster than most of the selected peers.
Home value fell about 1% over the 12 months ending August 2026, faster than 81% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latest | Today's rank | Changelast 12 months | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | $417,990 (Aug 26) | -1.1% | ||||
| United States ref | $368,697 (Aug 26) | +1.2% | ||||
| Toledo, OH | $133,536 (Aug 26) | 28th | +5.8% | 1st | 66% below peers | |
| Anchorage municipality, AK | $422,785 (Aug 26) | 11th | +5.3% | 2nd | 9% above peers | |
| Chesapeake, VA | $425,375 (Aug 26) | 10th | +3.6% | 3rd | 9% above peers | |
| Santa Ana, CA | $868,002 (Aug 26) | 1st | +3.3% | 4th | 123% above peers | |
| Fort Wayne, IN | $248,442 (Aug 26) | 23rd | +3.1% | 5th | 36% below peers | |
| Lincoln, NE | $293,764 (Aug 26) | 16th | +3.0% | 6th | 25% below peers | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | $851,107 (Aug 26) | 2nd | +2.9% | 7th | 118% above peers | |
| Buffalo, NY | $248,828 (Aug 26) | 22nd | +2.9% | 8th | 36% below peers | |
| Madison, WI | $426,336 (Aug 26) | 9th | +2.5% | 9th | 9% above peers | |
| Laredo, TX | $222,782 (Aug 26) | 25th | +2.2% | 10th | 43% below peers | |
| Lubbock, TX | $212,039 (Aug 26) | 26th | +2.1% | 11th | 46% below peers | |
| Reno, NV | $573,360 (Aug 26) | 5th | +1.4% | 12th | 47% above peers | |
| Louisville, KY | $263,130 (Aug 26) | 19th | +1.2% | 13th | 32% below peers | |
| Chula Vista, CA | $849,526 (Aug 26) | 3rd | +0.8% | 14th | 118% above peers | |
| Cincinnati, OH | $249,297 (Aug 26) | 21st | +0.5% | 15th | 36% below peers | |
| Winston-Salem, NC | $263,057 (Aug 26) | 20th | +0.2% | 16th | 32% below peers | |
| Greensboro, NC | $263,264 (Aug 26) | 18th | +0.0% | 17th | 32% below peers | |
| Jersey City, NJ | $657,765 (Aug 26) | 4th | -0.2% | 18th | 69% above peers | |
| St. Louis, MO | $181,925 (Aug 26) | 27th | -0.3% | 19th | 53% below peers | |
| Irving, TX | $339,198 (Aug 26) | 15th | -0.3% | 20th | 13% below peers | |
| Gilbert, AZ | $566,873 (Aug 26) | 6th | -0.3% | 21st | 45% above peers | |
| Pittsburgh, PA | $239,865 (Aug 26) | 24th | -1.0% | 22nd | 38% below peers | |
| Chandler, AZ | $515,351 (Aug 26) | 7th | -1.3% | 23rd | 32% above peers | |
| Glendale, AZ | $401,811 (Aug 26) | 13th | -1.4% | 24th | 3% above peers | |
| North Las Vegas, NV | $402,439 (Aug 26) | 12th | -1.5% | 25th | 3% above peers | |
| Garland, TX | $283,276 (Aug 26) | 17th | -3.3% | 26th | 27% below peers | |
| Durham, NC | $389,634 (Aug 26) | 14th | -3.4% | 27th | on par with peers | |
| Plano, TX | $493,092 (Aug 26) | 8th | -3.8% | 28th | 27% above peers |
This metric has no declared better direction; the badge reports the last 12 months' movement and its speed next to the selected peers. Chandler is falling faster than most of the selected peers.
Starter homes fell about 2% over the 12 months ending August 2026, faster than 85% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latest | Today's rank | Changelast 12 months | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | $293,613 (Aug 26) | -1.4% | ||||
| United States ref | $200,550 (Aug 26) | +2.2% | ||||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | $288,422 (Aug 26) | 13th | +8.1% | 1st | 2% above peers | |
| Toledo, OH | $67,101 (Aug 26) | 28th | +5.4% | 2nd | 76% below peers | |
| Laredo, TX | $152,796 (Aug 26) | 24th | +5.4% | 3rd | 46% below peers | |
| Buffalo, NY | $168,997 (Aug 26) | 20th | +4.1% | 4th | 40% below peers | |
| Chesapeake, VA | $297,515 (Aug 26) | 12th | +3.6% | 5th | 5% above peers | |
| Lincoln, NE | $216,087 (Aug 26) | 17th | +3.4% | 6th | 23% below peers | |
| Santa Ana, CA | $602,608 (Aug 26) | 2nd | +2.8% | 7th | 113% above peers | |
| Fort Wayne, IN | $160,142 (Aug 26) | 23rd | +2.7% | 8th | 43% below peers | |
| Lubbock, TX | $130,770 (Aug 26) | 26th | +2.1% | 9th | 54% below peers | |
| Cincinnati, OH | $165,811 (Aug 26) | 21st | +1.8% | 10th | 41% below peers | |
| Jersey City, NJ | $447,287 (Aug 26) | 5th | +1.4% | 11th | 58% above peers | |
| Louisville, KY | $172,131 (Aug 26) | 18th | +1.3% | 12th | 39% below peers | |
| Madison, WI | $312,158 (Aug 26) | 11th | +1.2% | 13th | 11% above peers | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | $474,162 (Aug 26) | 3rd | +1.0% | 14th | 68% above peers | |
| Reno, NV | $397,257 (Aug 26) | 7th | +0.8% | 15th | 41% above peers | |
| Winston-Salem, NC | $164,482 (Aug 26) | 22nd | +0.2% | 16th | 42% below peers | |
| Chula Vista, CA | $658,593 (Aug 26) | 1st | +0.1% | 17th | 133% above peers | |
| Irving, TX | $252,498 (Aug 26) | 15th | -0.1% | 18th | 11% below peers | |
| Greensboro, NC | $171,051 (Aug 26) | 19th | -0.2% | 19th | 39% below peers | |
| Gilbert, AZ | $449,884 (Aug 26) | 4th | -1.0% | 20th | 59% above peers | |
| Pittsburgh, PA | $140,307 (Aug 26) | 25th | -1.2% | 21st | 50% below peers | |
| North Las Vegas, NV | $333,778 (Aug 26) | 9th | -1.4% | 22nd | 18% above peers | |
| Glendale, AZ | $317,990 (Aug 26) | 10th | -1.5% | 23rd | 13% above peers | |
| Chandler, AZ | $397,527 (Aug 26) | 6th | -2.3% | 24th | 41% above peers | |
| Durham, NC | $282,309 (Aug 26) | 14th | -3.0% | 25th | on par with peers | |
| St. Louis, MO | $75,581 (Aug 26) | 27th | -3.3% | 26th | 73% below peers | |
| Garland, TX | $223,055 (Aug 26) | 16th | -3.4% | 27th | 21% below peers | |
| Plano, TX | $362,238 (Aug 26) | 8th | -3.9% | 28th | 28% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Homeownership changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (64.9% then, 65.0% now; margin ±1.5pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 67.4% | +2.9pp | |||||
| United States ref | 65.2% | ||||||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 63.6% | 8th | +5.5pp | 1st | 14% above peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 84.0% | 1st | +7.1pp | 2nd | 50% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 43.0% | 27th | +2.3pp | 3rd | 23% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 53.3% | 17th | +2.9pp | 4th | 5% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 39.8% | 28th | +2.1pp | 5th | 29% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 52.9% | 18th | +2.5pp | 6th | 6% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 52.3% | 19th | +2.1pp | 7th | 7% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 74.3% | 2nd | +3.0pp | 8th | 33% above peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 63.9% | 7th | +2.6pp | 9th | 14% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 55.6% | 16th | +2.1pp | 10th | 1% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 62.8% | 9th | +2.4pp | 11th | 12% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 49.8% | 22nd | +1.9pp | 12th | 11% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 45.3% | 25th | +1.6pp | 13th | 19% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 64.1% | 6th | +2.2pp | 14th | 14% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 38.1% | 29th | +1.3pp | 15th | 32% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 57.2% | 13th | +1.8pp | 16th | 2% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 59.8% | 12th | +0.7pp | 17th | 7% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 67.0% | 4th | +0.8pp | 18th | 20% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 47.7% | 23rd | +0.5pp | 19th | 15% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 50.5% | 21st | +0.2pp | 20th | 10% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 65.0% | 5th | +0.1pp | 21st | 16% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 51.2% | 20th | -0.1pp | 22nd | 9% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 61.9% | 10th | -0.1pp | 23rd | 10% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 73.1% | 3rd | -0.7pp | 24th | 30% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 61.6% | 11th | -0.9pp | 25th | 10% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 56.1% | 15th | -0.9pp | 26th | on par with peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 46.0% | 24th | -1.0pp | 27th | 18% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 44.6% | 26th | -1.5pp | 28th | 20% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 56.9% | 14th | -2.2pp | 29th | 2% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 27.9% | 30th | -1.2pp | 30th | 50% below peers |
This metric has no declared better direction; the badge reports the last 12 months' movement and its speed next to the selected peers. Most of the selected peers are rising faster.
Rent rose about 1% over the 12 months ending August 2026, slower than 78% of similar-size cities.
| Place | Latest | Today's rank | Changelast 12 months | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States ref | $1,948 (Aug 26) | +2.5% | ||||
| Reno, NV | $1,967 (Aug 26) | 7th | +7.1% | 1st | 24% above peers | |
| Chesapeake, VA | $2,092 (Aug 26) | 5th | +6.7% | 2nd | 32% above peers | |
| Fort Wayne, IN | $1,271 (Aug 26) | 26th | +5.9% | 3rd | 20% below peers | |
| Toledo, OH | $1,128 (Aug 26) | 28th | +5.7% | 4th | 29% below peers | |
| Anchorage municipality, AK | $1,802 (Aug 26) | 10th | +4.2% | 5th | 13% above peers | |
| Winston-Salem, NC | $1,507 (Aug 26) | 18th | +3.7% | 6th | 5% below peers | |
| Pittsburgh, PA | $1,545 (Aug 26) | 16th | +3.6% | 7th | 3% below peers | |
| St. Louis, MO | $1,330 (Aug 26) | 24th | +3.5% | 8th | 16% below peers | |
| Jersey City, NJ | $3,157 (Aug 26) | 1st | +3.0% | 9th | 99% above peers | |
| Buffalo, NY | $1,425 (Aug 26) | 19th | +2.9% | 10th | 10% below peers | |
| Cincinnati, OH | $1,414 (Aug 26) | 20th | +2.7% | 11th | 11% below peers | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | $2,127 (Aug 26) | 4th | +2.2% | 12th | 34% above peers | |
| Greensboro, NC | $1,392 (Aug 26) | 21st | +2.1% | 13th | 12% below peers | |
| Lincoln, NE | $1,308 (Aug 26) | 25th | +2.0% | 14th | 18% below peers | |
| Durham, NC | $1,659 (Aug 26) | 12th | +1.8% | 15th | 4% above peers | |
| Madison, WI | $1,616 (Aug 26) | 13th | +1.8% | 16th | 2% above peers | |
| Santa Ana, CA | $2,812 (Aug 26) | 3rd | +1.7% | 17th | 77% above peers | |
| Chula Vista, CA | $2,945 (Aug 26) | 2nd | +1.5% | 18th | 85% above peers | |
| Laredo, TX | $1,190 (Aug 26) | 27th | +1.5% | 19th | 25% below peers | |
| Louisville, KY | $1,353 (Aug 26) | 22nd | +1.5% | 20th | 15% below peers | |
| Lubbock, TX | $1,333 (Aug 26) | 23rd | +1.5% | 21st | 16% below peers | |
| Chandler, AZ | $1,868 (Aug 26) | 9th | +1.4% | 22nd | 17% above peers | |
| Irving, TX | $1,590 (Aug 26) | 14th | +0.8% | 23rd | on par with peers | |
| Gilbert, AZ | $2,075 (Aug 26) | 6th | +0.8% | 24th | 30% above peers | |
| Glendale, AZ | $1,507 (Aug 26) | 17th | +0.8% | 25th | 5% below peers | |
| Plano, TX | $1,742 (Aug 26) | 11th | +0.3% | 26th | 10% above peers | |
| North Las Vegas, NV | $1,889 (Aug 26) | 8th | -0.0% | 27th | 19% above peers | |
| Garland, TX | $1,556 (Aug 26) | 15th | -0.2% | 28th | 2% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Cost burden changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (26.4% then, 27.1% now; margin ±1.8pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 31.0% | +0.3pp | |||||
| United States ref | 32.2% | +0.4pp | |||||
| Santa Ana, CA | 42.6% | 29th | -4.5pp | 1st | 18% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 34.2% | 13th | -3.2pp | 2nd | 5% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 31.9% | 8th | -2.2pp | 3rd | 12% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 31.9% | 9th | -1.6pp | 4th | 12% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 31.1% | 6th | -0.7pp | 5th | 14% below peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 37.7% | 23rd | -0.8pp | 6th | 4% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 41.7% | 28th | -0.8pp | 7th | 15% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 36.1% | 16th | -0.6pp | 8th | on par with peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 33.7% | 12th | -0.2pp | 9th | 7% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 32.7% | 10th | +0.1pp | 10th | 10% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 38.9% | 26th | +0.4pp | 11th | 8% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 33.6% | 11th | +0.4pp | 12th | 7% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 35.8% | 15th | +0.6pp | 13th | 1% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 44.9% | 30th | +1.0pp | 14th | 24% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 27.1% | 2nd | +0.7pp | 15th | 25% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 25.3% | 1st | +0.6pp | 16th | 30% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 36.4% | 18th | +1.4pp | 17th | 1% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 36.4% | 17th | +1.5pp | 18th | 1% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 35.7% | 14th | +1.5pp | 19th | 1% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 36.9% | 22nd | +1.8pp | 20th | 2% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 36.9% | 20th | +2.0pp | 21st | 2% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 36.9% | 21st | +2.2pp | 22nd | 2% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 30.3% | 4th | +1.9pp | 23rd | 16% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 38.6% | 24th | +2.5pp | 24th | 7% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 39.0% | 27th | +2.6pp | 25th | 8% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 31.6% | 7th | +2.3pp | 26th | 13% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 27.6% | 3rd | +2.2pp | 27th | 24% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 38.6% | 25th | +3.2pp | 28th | 7% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 30.5% | 5th | +3.4pp | 29th | 16% below peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 36.8% | 19th | +5.4pp | 30th | 2% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
No vehicle changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (3.7% then, 3.3% now; margin ±0.7pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 5.4% | -0.8pp | |||||
| United States ref | 8.3% | -0.3pp | |||||
| Glendale, AZ | 6.7% | 16th | -1.7pp | 1st | on par with peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 22.6% | 29th | -5.3pp | 2nd | 238% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 8.2% | 21st | -1.9pp | 3rd | 23% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 7.2% | 17th | -1.4pp | 4th | 8% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 3.7% | 4th | -0.7pp | 5th | 45% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 11.7% | 23rd | -2.0pp | 6th | 75% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 17.1% | 26th | -2.8pp | 7th | 156% above peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 7.3% | 18th | -1.0pp | 8th | 9% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 20.6% | 28th | -2.7pp | 9th | 208% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 3.3% | 3rd | -0.4pp | 10th | 51% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 4.1% | 6th | -0.5pp | 11th | 38% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 8.4% | 22nd | -0.7pp | 12th | 25% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 18.5% | 27th | -1.2pp | 13th | 176% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 5.2% | 9th | -0.2pp | 14th | 22% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 5.8% | 10th | -0.2pp | 15th | 12% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 4.5% | 7th | -0.1pp | 16th | 32% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 13.0% | 25th | -0.3pp | 17th | 95% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 6.1% | 13th | +0.2pp | 18th | 8% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 40.3% | 30th | +1.8pp | 19th | 503% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 12.2% | 24th | +0.8pp | 20th | 82% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 8.2% | 20th | +0.6pp | 21st | 22% above peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 6.0% | 12th | +0.5pp | 22nd | 10% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 6.6% | 14th | +0.7pp | 23rd | 1% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 6.7% | 15th | +0.8pp | 24th | on par with peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 3.7% | 5th | +0.5pp | 25th | 44% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 7.8% | 19th | +1.2pp | 26th | 17% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 5.0% | 8th | +0.9pp | 27th | 25% below peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 5.8% | 11th | +1.2pp | 28th | 12% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 2.7% | 2nd | +0.6pp | 29th | 60% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 2.3% | 1st | +0.6pp | 30th | 66% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods clears the combined published margin AND is big enough to matter next to the peer spread.
Uninsured fell 0.7 percentage points between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 7.3% to 6.6% - more than the combined survey margin (±0.7pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 10.5% | +0.1pp | |||||
| United States ref | 8.4% | -0.4pp | |||||
| Jersey City, NJ | 8.5% | 14th | -2.9pp | 1st | 10% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 12.2% | 24th | -3.5pp | 2nd | 29% above peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 5.7% | 5th | -1.5pp | 3rd | 40% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 5.8% | 6th | -1.4pp | 4th | 38% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 8.4% | 13th | -1.9pp | 5th | 11% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 6.3% | 8th | -1.3pp | 6th | 33% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 10.3% | 19th | -2.1pp | 7th | 9% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 6.4% | 9th | -1.0pp | 8th | 33% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 10.7% | 22nd | -1.8pp | 9th | 14% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 9.3% | 15th | -1.5pp | 10th | 1% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 9.8% | 17th | -1.4pp | 11th | 4% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 4.1% | 1st | -0.5pp | 12th | 57% below peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 5.1% | 4th | -0.6pp | 13th | 46% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 10.0% | 18th | -1.2pp | 14th | 6% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 6.6% | 10th | -0.7pp | 15th | 30% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 11.2% | 23rd | -1.1pp | 16th | 19% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 4.8% | 3rd | -0.5pp | 17th | 49% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 10.7% | 21st | -0.5pp | 18th | 13% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 27.3% | 30th | -0.3pp | 19th | 189% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 13.3% | 25th | -0.1pp | 20th | 41% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 6.7% | 11th | +0.1pp | 21st | 30% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 13.7% | 27th | +0.6pp | 22nd | 44% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 9.4% | 16th | +0.5pp | 23rd | on par with peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 4.2% | 2nd | +0.3pp | 24th | 55% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 25.1% | 29th | +1.7pp | 25th | 166% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 7.8% | 12th | +0.5pp | 26th | 17% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 13.4% | 26th | +0.9pp | 27th | 41% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 10.6% | 20th | +0.8pp | 28th | 12% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 22.3% | 28th | +2.0pp | 29th | 136% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 6.3% | 7th | +1.0pp | 30th | 34% below peers |
Modeled estimate with no usable trend; the level is shown and no trend claims are made.
Adult obesity is somewhat below the peer median.
| Place | Latest | Today's rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 33.5% | |||
| United States ref | 33.4% | |||
| Chula Vista, CA | 26.9% | 1st | 20% below peers | |
| Plano, TX | 28.2% | 2nd | 17% below peers | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | 28.8% | 3rd | 15% below peers | |
| Jersey City, NJ | 29.1% | 4th | 14% below peers | |
| Gilbert, AZ | 29.8% | 5th | 12% below peers | |
| Reno, NV | 30.1% | 6th | 11% below peers | |
| Chandler, AZ | 30.2% | 7th | 11% below peers | |
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 30.4% | 8th | 10% below peers | |
| Irving, TX | 30.7% | 9th | 9% below peers | |
| Santa Ana, CA | 30.8% | 10th | 9% below peers | |
| Madison, WI | 32.1% | 11th | 5% below peers | |
| St. Petersburg, FL | 32.2% | 12th | 5% below peers | |
| Saint Paul, MN | 33.2% | 13th | 2% below peers | |
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 33.4% | 14th | 1% below peers | |
| Garland, TX | 33.6% | 15th | 1% below peers | |
| Lincoln, NE | 33.8% | 16th | on par with peers | |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 33.8% | 17th | on par with peers | |
| Durham, NC | 33.9% | 18th | on par with peers | |
| Winston-Salem, NC | 34.0% | 19th | 1% above peers | |
| Greensboro, NC | 35.1% | 20th | 4% above peers | |
| North Las Vegas, NV | 35.5% | 21st | 5% above peers | |
| Glendale, AZ | 35.9% | 22nd | 6% above peers | |
| Lubbock, TX | 36.6% | 23rd | 8% above peers | |
| St. Louis, MO | 37.4% | 24th | 11% above peers | |
| Buffalo, NY | 38.4% | 25th | 14% above peers | |
| Fort Wayne, IN | 39.4% | 26th | 17% above peers | |
| Louisville, KY | 39.9% | 27th | 18% above peers | |
| Chesapeake, VA | 40.4% | 28th | 20% above peers | |
| Cincinnati, OH | 41.8% | 29th | 24% above peers | |
| Laredo, TX | 42.3% | 30th | 25% above peers | |
| Toledo, OH | 45.0% | 31st | 33% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Child uninsured changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (6.3% then, 5.4% now; margin ±1.2pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 8.8% | +0.6pp | |||||
| United States ref | 5.5% | +0.4pp | |||||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 3.9% | 9th | -2.1pp | 1st | 26% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 2.1% | 2nd | -1.2pp | 2nd | 59% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 3.9% | 10th | -1.6pp | 3rd | 26% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 3.8% | 8th | -1.4pp | 4th | 28% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 3.5% | 5th | -1.0pp | 5th | 33% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 5.0% | 13th | -1.1pp | 6th | 4% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 6.4% | 19th | -1.4pp | 7th | 22% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 3.7% | 7th | -0.8pp | 8th | 30% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 6.8% | 20th | -1.2pp | 9th | 31% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 5.4% | 17th | -0.9pp | 10th | 2% above peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 7.3% | 22nd | -0.8pp | 11th | 40% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 4.9% | 12th | -0.2pp | 12th | 7% below peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 7.8% | 23rd | -0.1pp | 13th | 49% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 14.1% | 28th | -0.2pp | 14th | 169% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 4.4% | 11th | -0.0pp | 15th | 16% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 3.6% | 6th | -0.0pp | 16th | 31% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 9.9% | 26th | +0.3pp | 17th | 88% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 3.5% | 4th | +0.2pp | 18th | 34% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 5.2% | 16th | +0.4pp | 19th | on par with peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 8.0% | 24th | +0.6pp | 20th | 52% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 18.0% | 30th | +1.5pp | 21st | 244% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 9.1% | 25th | +0.8pp | 22nd | 74% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 5.1% | 14th | +0.4pp | 23rd | 2% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 5.2% | 15th | +0.5pp | 24th | on par with peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 15.8% | 29th | +2.0pp | 25th | 202% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 1.9% | 1st | +0.3pp | 26th | 63% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 2.8% | 3rd | +0.5pp | 27th | 47% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 10.7% | 27th | +2.3pp | 28th | 105% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 7.3% | 21st | +1.7pp | 29th | 39% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 5.8% | 18th | +1.4pp | 30th | 11% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods clears the combined published margin AND is big enough to matter next to the peer spread.
College attainment rose 3.0 percentage points between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 44.7% to 47.7% - more than the combined survey margin (±1.5pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 33.3% | +3.9pp | |||||
| United States ref | 35.7% | +3.5pp | |||||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 28.1% | 24th | +5.5pp | 1st | 31% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 18.3% | 30th | +3.3pp | 2nd | 55% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 21.9% | 28th | +3.6pp | 3rd | 47% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 42.6% | 10th | +6.9pp | 4th | 4% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 57.3% | 4th | +7.7pp | 5th | 40% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 54.8% | 5th | +7.2pp | 6th | 34% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 39.5% | 16th | +5.0pp | 7th | 4% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 22.0% | 27th | +2.6pp | 8th | 46% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 41.1% | 14th | +4.8pp | 9th | on par with peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 33.2% | 21st | +3.8pp | 10th | 19% below peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 31.2% | 22nd | +3.5pp | 11th | 24% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 41.8% | 12th | +4.7pp | 12th | 2% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 24.3% | 26th | +2.7pp | 13th | 41% below peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 42.4% | 11th | +4.7pp | 14th | 4% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 18.9% | 29th | +2.0pp | 15th | 54% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 35.1% | 20th | +3.6pp | 16th | 14% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 36.9% | 18th | +3.7pp | 17th | 10% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 25.4% | 25th | +2.5pp | 18th | 38% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 49.1% | 6th | +4.5pp | 19th | 20% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 36.8% | 19th | +3.2pp | 20th | 10% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 48.2% | 7th | +3.8pp | 21st | 18% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 43.8% | 9th | +3.0pp | 22nd | 7% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 41.0% | 15th | +2.8pp | 23rd | on par with peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 38.6% | 17th | +2.5pp | 24th | 6% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 47.8% | 8th | +3.0pp | 25th | 17% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 61.9% | 1st | +3.5pp | 26th | 51% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 60.5% | 2nd | +3.3pp | 27th | 48% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 41.8% | 13th | +2.2pp | 28th | 2% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 29.0% | 23rd | +1.2pp | 29th | 29% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 59.9% | 3rd | +2.0pp | 30th | 46% above peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Preschool enrollment changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (46.1% then, 46.9% now; margin ±6.7pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 35.0% | -3.9pp | |||||
| United States ref | 45.5% | ||||||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 69.9% | 2nd | +11.4pp | 1st | 67% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 51.1% | 6th | +4.3pp | 2nd | 22% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 36.6% | 23rd | +1.7pp | 3rd | 13% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 51.4% | 5th | +2.1pp | 4th | 23% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 39.8% | 17th | +1.1pp | 5th | 5% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 53.8% | 4th | +1.0pp | 6th | 28% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 46.9% | 12th | +0.8pp | 7th | 12% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 44.2% | 13th | -0.1pp | 8th | 5% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 47.6% | 10th | -0.2pp | 9th | 14% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 50.9% | 7th | -0.4pp | 10th | 21% above peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 37.1% | 20th | -1.2pp | 11th | 12% below peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 47.5% | 11th | -2.0pp | 12th | 13% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 47.7% | 9th | -2.1pp | 13th | 14% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 73.2% | 1st | -3.6pp | 14th | 75% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 36.2% | 24th | -1.8pp | 15th | 14% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 43.0% | 14th | -2.8pp | 16th | 3% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 31.5% | 28th | -2.1pp | 17th | 25% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 34.2% | 25th | -2.4pp | 18th | 18% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 41.4% | 16th | -3.9pp | 19th | 1% below peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 54.5% | 3rd | -5.6pp | 20th | 30% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 50.1% | 8th | -6.6pp | 21st | 20% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 37.0% | 21st | -4.9pp | 22nd | 12% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 32.6% | 27th | -4.5pp | 23rd | 22% below peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 39.8% | 18th | -7.2pp | 24th | 5% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 39.6% | 19th | -7.3pp | 25th | 6% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 36.8% | 22nd | -7.2pp | 26th | 12% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 42.0% | 15th | -8.4pp | 27th | on par with peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 26.7% | 29th | -6.6pp | 28th | 36% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 33.1% | 26th | -14.3pp | 29th | 21% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 22.2% | 30th | -10.0pp | 30th | 47% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods clears the combined published margin AND is big enough to matter next to the peer spread.
Disconnected youth fell 3.9 percentage points between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 8.1% to 4.3% - more than the combined survey margin (±2.4pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 8.2% | -0.2pp | |||||
| United States ref | 6.9% | +0.3pp | |||||
| Chandler, AZ | 4.3% | 5th | -3.9pp | 1st | 40% below peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 6.7% | 12th | -3.3pp | 2nd | 5% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 7.1% | 17th | -2.3pp | 3rd | 1% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 4.5% | 6th | -1.2pp | 4th | 36% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 5.1% | 9th | -1.3pp | 5th | 28% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 7.8% | 20th | -1.9pp | 6th | 10% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 8.4% | 23rd | -1.9pp | 7th | 18% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 5.1% | 8th | -1.1pp | 8th | 28% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 5.3% | 10th | -1.0pp | 9th | 25% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 7.6% | 19th | -0.7pp | 10th | 7% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 2.2% | 1st | -0.1pp | 11th | 69% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 7.9% | 21st | -0.2pp | 12th | 12% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 4.9% | 7th | -0.1pp | 13th | 30% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 8.4% | 24th | +0.1pp | 14th | 20% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 6.7% | 13th | +0.2pp | 15th | 5% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 3.7% | 3rd | +0.2pp | 16th | 47% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 4.2% | 4th | +0.3pp | 17th | 40% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 6.8% | 15th | +0.9pp | 18th | 4% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 3.5% | 2nd | +0.7pp | 19th | 51% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 12.0% | 29th | +2.6pp | 20th | 69% above peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 6.7% | 14th | +1.9pp | 21st | 5% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 7.2% | 18th | +2.1pp | 22nd | 2% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 7.1% | 16th | +2.1pp | 23rd | on par with peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 9.9% | 26th | +3.1pp | 24th | 41% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 10.1% | 28th | +3.2pp | 25th | 43% above peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 6.5% | 11th | +2.1pp | 26th | 8% below peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 14.1% | 30th | +5.0pp | 27th | 100% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 10.1% | 27th | +4.4pp | 28th | 43% above peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 8.1% | 22nd | +3.7pp | 29th | 14% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 9.1% | 25th | +4.2pp | 30th | 29% above peers |
A real change beyond the survey margin; neither direction is inherently better for this metric.
Population rose about 11% between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 252,692 to 280,136 - more than the combined survey margin (±164).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 232,491 | 30th | +23% | 1st | 16% below peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 278,595 | 14th | +15% | 2nd | on par with peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 280,262 | 12th | +15% | 3rd | 1% above peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 294,078 | 7th | +12% | 4th | 6% above peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 280,136 | 13th | +11% | 5th | 1% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 273,212 | 18th | +11% | 6th | 2% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 278,001 | 15th | +9% | 7th | on par with peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 291,467 | 8th | +8% | 8th | 5% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 276,854 | 16th | +8% | 9th | on par with peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 256,492 | 24th | +7% | 10th | 8% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 252,583 | 26th | +5% | 11th | 9% below peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 264,814 | 21st | +4% | 12th | 5% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 294,856 | 6th | +4% | 13th | 6% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 246,844 | 28th | +4% | 14th | 11% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 301,198 | 5th | +3% | 15th | 8% above peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 311,224 | 2nd | +3% | 16th | 12% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 252,037 | 27th | +3% | 17th | 9% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 276,375 | 17th | +3% | 18th | 1% below peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 252,833 | 25th | +2% | 19th | 9% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 290,594 | 9th | +1% | 20th | 5% above peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 268,589 | 19th | +1% | 21st | 3% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 307,284 | 3rd | +1% | 22nd | 11% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 304,759 | 4th | +1% | 23rd | 10% above peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 262,732 | 22nd | +1% | 24th | 5% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 257,619 | 23rd | -1% | 25th | 7% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 288,976 | 10th | -2% | 26th | 4% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 243,821 | 29th | -3% | 27th | 12% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 267,463 | 20th | -3% | 28th | 4% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 312,534 | 1st | -6% | 29th | 12% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 288,512 | 11th | -6% | 30th | 4% above peers |
A real change beyond the survey margin; neither direction is inherently better for this metric.
Single-parent rose 5.1 percentage points between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys, from 22.8% to 27.9% - more than the combined survey margin (±3.6pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 31.4% | -0.6pp | |||||
| United States ref | 29.9% | -0.2pp | |||||
| Chandler, AZ | 27.9% | 24th | +5.1pp | 1st | 22% below peers | ||
| Gilbert, AZ | 19.9% | 29th | +3.5pp | 2nd | 44% below peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 26.6% | 26th | +3.7pp | 3rd | 25% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 31.6% | 19th | +4.2pp | 4th | 11% below peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 39.6% | 9th | +4.4pp | 5th | 11% above peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 31.3% | 20th | +3.5pp | 6th | 12% below peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 38.0% | 11th | +2.6pp | 7th | 6% above peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 31.6% | 18th | +2.1pp | 8th | 11% below peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 61.7% | 1st | +3.8pp | 9th | 73% above peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 19.4% | 30th | +0.7pp | 10th | 45% below peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 29.5% | 23rd | +0.9pp | 11th | 17% below peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 39.6% | 10th | +1.2pp | 12th | 11% above peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 26.7% | 25th | +0.8pp | 13th | 25% below peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 31.1% | 21st | +0.5pp | 14th | 13% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 40.3% | 8th | +0.5pp | 15th | 13% above peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 37.2% | 13th | +0.3pp | 16th | 4% above peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 42.9% | 5th | -1.1pp | 17th | 20% above peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 41.9% | 7th | -1.3pp | 18th | 17% above peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 30.1% | 22nd | -1.1pp | 19th | 16% below peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 42.6% | 6th | -2.1pp | 20th | 20% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 52.2% | 3rd | -3.6pp | 21st | 47% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 52.2% | 4th | -4.0pp | 22nd | 46% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 35.6% | 15th | -2.8pp | 23rd | on par with peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 56.2% | 2nd | -6.5pp | 24th | 58% above peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 25.9% | 27th | -3.4pp | 25th | 27% below peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 23.6% | 28th | -3.3pp | 26th | 34% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 31.6% | 17th | -4.9pp | 27th | 11% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 36.0% | 14th | -5.7pp | 28th | 1% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 37.4% | 12th | -5.9pp | 29th | 5% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 33.9% | 16th | -7.3pp | 30th | 5% below peers |
The change between non-overlapping survey periods is smaller than the combined published margin of error, so no real change can be claimed.
Working parents changed less than the survey can measure between the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 surveys (63.4% then, 67.6% now; margin ±6.6pp).
| Place | Latest2020-2024 survey | Today's rank | Change2015-2019 → 2020-2024 | Sig. | Change rank | History | Latest vs. peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona ref | 64.7% | +3.0pp | |||||
| United States ref | 68.1% | +1.9pp | |||||
| Gilbert, AZ | 70.7% | 9th | +15.2pp | 1st | 3% above peers | ||
| Buffalo, NY | 65.5% | 18th | +7.7pp | 2nd | 4% below peers | ||
| North Las Vegas, NV | 69.3% | 11th | +8.0pp | 3rd | 1% above peers | ||
| Scottsdale, AZ | 69.0% | 14th | +6.8pp | 4th | 1% above peers | ||
| Chula Vista, CA | 71.4% | 8th | +5.5pp | 5th | 4% above peers | ||
| Laredo, TX | 56.3% | 29th | +4.2pp | 6th | 18% below peers | ||
| Jersey City, NJ | 65.3% | 19th | +4.2pp | 7th | 5% below peers | ||
| Chandler, AZ | 67.6% | 17th | +4.2pp | 8th | 1% below peers | ||
| Plano, TX | 59.9% | 28th | +3.3pp | 9th | 13% below peers | ||
| Anchorage municipality, AK | 68.5% | 15th | +3.2pp | 10th | on par with peers | ||
| Santa Ana, CA | 62.8% | 25th | +2.4pp | 11th | 8% below peers | ||
| Winston-Salem, NC | 65.2% | 21st | +2.3pp | 12th | 5% below peers | ||
| St. Petersburg, FL | 72.6% | 7th | +0.8pp | 13th | 6% above peers | ||
| Reno, NV | 75.1% | 2nd | +0.3pp | 14th | 10% above peers | ||
| Durham, NC | 74.5% | 4th | -0.5pp | 15th | 9% above peers | ||
| Glendale, AZ | 63.5% | 24th | -0.5pp | 16th | 7% below peers | ||
| Madison, WI | 75.9% | 1st | -0.7pp | 17th | 11% above peers | ||
| Pittsburgh, PA | 69.1% | 13th | -0.7pp | 18th | 1% above peers | ||
| Garland, TX | 60.7% | 27th | -0.6pp | 19th | 11% below peers | ||
| Greensboro, NC | 69.6% | 10th | -0.8pp | 20th | 2% above peers | ||
| Lubbock, TX | 67.8% | 16th | -1.0pp | 21st | 1% below peers | ||
| Chesapeake, VA | 65.3% | 20th | -1.4pp | 22nd | 5% below peers | ||
| Lincoln, NE | 73.5% | 5th | -1.9pp | 23rd | 7% above peers | ||
| St. Louis, MO | 74.5% | 3rd | -2.2pp | 24th | 9% above peers | ||
| Port St. Lucie, FL | 73.0% | 6th | -2.8pp | 25th | 7% above peers | ||
| Toledo, OH | 69.3% | 12th | -4.5pp | 26th | 1% above peers | ||
| Saint Paul, MN | 64.9% | 22nd | -6.9pp | 27th | 5% below peers | ||
| Cincinnati, OH | 64.5% | 23rd | -7.3pp | 28th | 6% below peers | ||
| Fort Wayne, IN | 62.2% | 26th | -8.3pp | 29th | 9% below peers | ||
| Irving, TX | 53.4% | 30th | -8.5pp | 30th | 22% below peers |