ZIP code
48017
in Clawson, MichiganPopulation 11,350
63.14/ 100
Ranked #2,896 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 9.1%)
Ranked #67 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 6.9%)
Ranked #46 of 215 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI ZIPs (top 21%)
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.
Pharmacy access
0.62 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Floodplain exposure
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
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 ›Dental provider access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
0.9 per 100,000 residents per year
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Tree cover
0.00%
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Walkability
120 intersections/sq mi
in the top 7.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Lead in tap water
6 ppb
in the top 7.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
US92ndDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
9.5%
in the bottom 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Civic-institution access
0.62 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, Clawson, Michigan (ZIP 48017) lands in the top 9.1% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,896th) and the top 6.9% of Michigan (67th).
Taken together, the profile's clearest strengths surface right away: pharmacy settles in the top 3.2% nationally, and floodplain exposure lies at the national minimum. Dental providers resides in the top 4.1% nationally, and fatal road crashes lands in the bottom 4.4% nationally. Walkability registers in the top 7.7% nationally, modeled mobility disability sits in the bottom 7.2% nationally, and civic rests in the top 9.3% nationally. Against that, modeled tree cover is at the national minimum, modeled industrial-pollution burden stands in the top 7.5% nationally, and lead in tap water settles in the top 7.8% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Floodplain exposure is land with about a 1-in-100 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "100-year floodplain". Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 48073, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 85%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Disability
healthier than 90%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 93%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 53%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 23%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 64%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 80%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 65%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 87%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 76%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 70%
8%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 28%
14%
“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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 22.8; chronic-disease standing 85.4 — 63 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,658 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
48073
Michiganshares a border
Score 65.36
Closest healthier
48083
Michiganshares a border
Score 63.99
Similar health profile
95005
California99% similar profile
Score 62.13
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 | 23.6% | 21.6–25.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.1% | 28.7–33.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.7% | 7.9–9.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.7–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.7 |
| Depression among adults | 23.4% | 20.9–26.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.5% | 7.5–9.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 32.5% | 30.0–35.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.1% | 27.6–34.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.6% | 2.4–2.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.6% | 5.4–8.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.1% | 4.2–6.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.7% | 73.2–78.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.0% | 76.4–81.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.7% | 87.3–90.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.8% | 69.7–76.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.2% | 71.8–76.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.6% | 71.7–81.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.1% | 15.7–20.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.5% | 9.9–13.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.7% | 15.4–20.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.3% | 27.3–33.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.8% | 12.2–15.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.2% | 14.4–17.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.2% | 9.9–12.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.9% | 10.5–13.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.0% | 20.6–25.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.3–6.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.6–7.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.3–10.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.6% | 2.3–2.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.3% | 2.9–3.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.1% | 17.5–23.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.5% | 8.0–11.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.8% | 6.4–9.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 6.8–9.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 4.9–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.9% | 27.4–34.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.9–6.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 5.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 45.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 20.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 75.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 55.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 19.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 39.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $88,812 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $267,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,254 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $972 ($719–$1,368) n=849 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 78.7 yr ± 0.89 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.6 yr (75.7–81.6) n=940 |
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 0.89 years of 78.7, 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