ZIP code
04415
in Brownville Junction, MainePopulation 215
43.67/ 100
Ranked #23,728 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 26%)
Ranked #304 of 408 Maine ZIPs (bottom 25%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
10 per million
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
30.8%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
5.9%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the bottom 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS3rdDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Distance to a nursing home
14.9 mi
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare- or Medicaid-certified nursing home.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
15.9 mi
in the top 7.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Walkability
120 intersections/sq mi
in the top 7.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.4%
in the top 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›The read
Brownville Junction, Maine (ZIP 04415), by its composite score, sits in the bottom 26% nationally (23,728th) and the bottom 25% of Maine (304th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures that define this area's challenges come through directly: modeled arsenic settles in the top 3.0% nationally, and energy burden sits in the top 3.1% nationally. Distance to a nursing home lies in the top 5.5% nationally, and modeled coronary heart disease rests in the top 7.1% nationally. On the stronger side, modeled transportation noise resides at the national minimum, air-toxics cancer risk is in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and expected annual loss lands in the bottom 3.5% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility stands in the top 7.3% nationally, and walkability registers in the top 7.5% nationally. Modeled extreme heat settles at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs.
Next to the surrounding area, walkability runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 04414, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 62%
13%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.5%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 10%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 9%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Disability
healthier than 25%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 97%
14%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 60%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 12%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 11%
11%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 31%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
04414
Maineshares a border
Score 44.69
Closest healthier
04441
Maineabout 5.0 mi away
Score 50.60
Similar health profile
04758
Maine99% similar profile
Score 43.50
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 38.6% | 35.2–41.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.3% | 38.6–45.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.5% | 11.2–14.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.4% | 9.0–11.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.8% | 9.7–14.0 |
| Depression among adults | 25.5% | 22.4–28.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.6% | 12.7–16.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.7% | 39.1–46.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.0% | 30.9–41.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.8% | 4.2–5.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 21.2% | 17.8–24.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.4% | 7.3–12.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.5% | 75.3–81.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.3% | 79.4–84.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.7% | 85.7–89.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.1% | 63.8–72.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 54.5% | 50.9–57.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.1% | 70.0–81.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.4% | 12.1–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 19.9% | 16.4–23.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 28.4% | 24.0–33.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.8% | 32.2–41.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.8% | 20.2–27.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.6% | 15.5–19.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.9% | 15.6–20.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.9% | 14.6–19.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.3% | 32.0–41.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.0–11.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.3–11.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.4% | 15.6–21.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.1–5.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.8% | 4.9–6.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.5% | 20.9–28.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.9% | 11.0–17.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 18.5% | 14.8–22.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.3–13.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.5–10.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.5% | 27.5–35.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.6–10.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ME median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.3% (3.2–19.5%) n=416 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 12.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 9.8% (3.0–20.9%) n=413 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 16.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.2% (0.8–11.7%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 29.4% (14.9–57.3%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.1% (0.0–8.3%) n=415 |
| Households without a vehicle | 9.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–11.5%) n=416 |
| Broadband subscription | 90.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.9% (79.7–97.2%) n=416 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 29.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.4% (13.9–35.0%) n=416 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 84.7% (68.7–95.5%) n=416 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.8% (0.0–3.4%) n=416 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.1% (0.1–5.9%) n=417 |
| Single-parent households | 80.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 61.5% (48.8–80.6%) n=414 |
| Population 65+ | 21.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 24.6% (16.3–42.1%) n=417 |
| Median age | 40.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 49.0 yr (39.3–60.7) n=413 |
| Median household income | $50,714 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,485 ($50,225–$100,018) n=396 |
| Median home value | $87,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $246,500 ($130,660–$484,830) n=402 |
| Median gross rent | — | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,014 ($618–$1,501) n=320 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ME median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured