ZIP code
44682
in Tuscarawas, OhioPopulation 1,295
47.55/ 100
Ranked #19,499 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 39%)
Ranked #573 of 1,176 Ohio ZIPs (top 49%)
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.
Outer-floodplain exposure
28.1%
in the top 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
0 per 100,000 residents per year
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Walkability
220 intersections/sq mi
in the top 2.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
78.2%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST17thUS5thDefinition & 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
0.19%
in the bottom 10.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS10thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
43.1%
in the top 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
0.70%
in the bottom 21% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST9thUS21stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, Tuscarawas, Ohio (ZIP 44682) comes out in the bottom 39% nationally (19,499th) and the top 49% of Ohio (573rd).
The profile opens on the burdens that define it most: outer-floodplain exposure settles in the top 1.5% nationally, and modeled pfas registers in the top 2.3% nationally. Fiber broadband stands at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Modeled obesity lands in the top 8.6% nationally. More positively, fatal road crashes is at the national minimum, and walkability resides in the top 2.0% nationally. Modeled expected annual loss rests in the bottom 3.6% nationally, and disaster risk lies in the bottom 5.4% nationally. Modeled transportation noise sits in the bottom 10.3% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise settles at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 44629, 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
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 42%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 40%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Disability
healthier than 58%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 40%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 32%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 16%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 68%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 63%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 70%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 42%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 45%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Holding it back
Risk Behavior
healthier than 32%
11%
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
44629
Ohioshares a border
Score 47.70
Closest healthier
44622
Ohioabout 7.1 mi away
Score 49.12
Similar health profile
16930
Pennsylvania99% similar profile
Score 46.48
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 | 31.1% | 28.1–34.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.8% | 36.1–43.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 8.9–10.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.8% | 6.8–8.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.2% | 7.9–10.6 |
| Depression among adults | 24.7% | 21.5–28.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.1% | 11.4–14.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.5% | 32.9–40.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 43.1% | 37.5–48.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.9% | 3.4–4.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.8% | 15.5–22.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.6% | 5.9–9.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.4% | 77.8–82.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.0% | 76.7–82.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.3% | 84.1–88.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.0% | 62.7–70.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 60.9% | 57.3–64.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.6% | 66.5–79.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.7% | 13.9–19.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.4% | 14.3–20.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.0% | 24.4–33.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.7% | 35.9–45.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.0% | 16.0–21.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.1% | 15.9–20.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.7% | 12.7–16.6 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.0% | 12.0–15.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 29.3% | 25.3–33.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.7% | 6.8–8.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.2–9.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.5% | 12.3–16.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.3–4.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.4% | 17.9–25.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.4% | 9.9–14.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 8.1–12.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.0–11.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.6–7.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.4% | 29.5–39.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.0% | 5.9–8.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (3.5–26.2%) n=1,177 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.8% (2.5–18.1%) n=1,174 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.5% (2.3–17.0%) n=1,179 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 17.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.7% (8.1–45.8%) n=1,179 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.7% (0.0–9.8%) n=1,171 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.4% (0.0–14.5%) n=1,177 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.9% (76.5–96.0%) n=1,177 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 20.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.3% (11.2–34.6%) n=1,177 |
| Homeownership rate | 71.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.3% (52.8–91.8%) n=1,177 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.8% (0.0–3.5%) n=1,177 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.0% (0.0–6.8%) n=1,180 |
| Single-parent households | 43.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 53.2% (36.6–68.1%) n=1,168 |
| Population 65+ | 10.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.1–27.2%) n=1,180 |
| Median age | 33.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.5 yr (33.2–50.5) n=1,169 |
| Median household income | $86,250 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $70,500 ($46,328–$101,197) n=1,127 |
| Median home value | $155,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,700 ($104,860–$310,980) n=1,117 |
| Median gross rent | $907 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $907 ($714–$1,294) n=1,007 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.1 yr ± 0.90 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.9 yr (74.0–81.3) n=1,154 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.90 years of 79.1, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
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