According to a new report, it might be a mistake to raise a family in the “Mistake by the Lake.”
A new analysis from personal finance site WalletHub found that Cleveland is among the worst cities in the nation for raising a family. The Forest City, which has been hemorrhaging residents for decades, ranked third-worst of the 182 cities WalletHub ranked.
“Finding the best place to raise a family is difficult, between balancing an affordable cost of living with good educational opportunities, safety and enough recreation to keep kids entertained,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said on the site.
“On top of all of these factors, people also often want to raise their children close to their extended family,” Lupo added. “Therefore, current or prospective parents can benefit from narrowing down their choices to a few of the best cities that are within a reasonable drive of their family.”
Fremont, Calif.; Overland Park, Kan.; Plano, Texas; Irvine, Calif.; and South Burlington, Vt., ranked as the best places to raise a family. Memphis, Tenn.; Detroit, Mich.; Cleveland; Gulfport, Miss.; and Newark, N.J. ranked worst.
According to Fox 8, Cleveland ranked 93rd for the percentage of families with young kids, 181st for the percentage of two-parent families and 181st for the percentage of families living in poverty. It also ranks No. 182 for the separation and divorce rate and 173rd for the violent crime rate per capita.
Conversely, the city ranks better for housing affordability (No. 14), number of attractions (No. 50) and playgrounds per capita (No. 51).
According to Census numbers, Cleveland’s population has grown over the past few years and has started to level off. However, the city’s modest population gains followed years of a dwindling population.
Cleveland’s population peaked in about 1950, when it hit 914,808. The latest numbers suggest that it stood at 356,556 in 2025.
David MacPhee, a professor of human development and family studies at Colorado State University, told WalletHub that “there is no magic wand” to making cities “more attractive to young families.” However, he cited the International City/County Management Association’s three essential ingredients: housing, education, and safety.
“First, low- and middle-income housing options need to be a focus. These would include construction of more townhomes, duplexes, and subsidized housing that would reduce housing costs and preserve homeownership as an option for families,” MacPhee told the site. “Second, investment in high-quality schools—defined in terms of strong curricula and reasonable class sizes—are essential. Last but not least, cities need to create a safer climate that involves everything from crime reduction to limiting traffic fatalities.
“Ancillary to a safer climate would be more inviting environs through green space and small public parks,” MacPhee added. “Finally, attractive communities need to have public spaces that serve people more so than vehicles. For example, cities would become safer and more efficient if more emphasis was placed on mass transit, ride sharing, and a web of bike lanes and trails.”
Cleveland wasn’t the only city on the personal finance site’s list. Columbus ranked No. 72, Cincinnati was No. 96, Akron was No. 159, and Toledo was No. 171.
“The more opportunities and resources available in a community, the less risk and stress, and the more likely that families can provide a supportive environment for themselves and their social networks,” MacPhee said.
“Is it worth the monetary investment to reach these noble goals?” MacPhee added. “Empirical evidence tends to support the adage that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,’ which certainly is true when it comes to investment in a bright future for generations to come.”
