ZIP code
48316
in Utica, MichiganPopulation 28,784
60.70/ 100
Ranked #4,327 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 13.5%)
Ranked #108 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 11.1%)
Ranked #67 of 215 Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI ZIPs (top 31%)
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.
PFAS in drinking water
90%
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
0.2 mi
in the bottom 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST7thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Lead in tap water
0.0000039 ppb
in the bottom 9.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
US9thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 10.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS89thDefinition & 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 ›Home broadband subscription
96.8%
in the top 11.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
5.4%
in the bottom 12.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST10thUS12thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
72.3%
in the top 9.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST72ndUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.14 per 1,000 residents
in the top 12.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS87thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.9%
in the bottom 12.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS12thDefinition & 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 ›The read
By the composite measure, ZIP 48316, one of several in Utica, Michigan sits in the top 13.5% healthiest ZIPs nationally (4,327th) and the top 11.1% of Michigan (108th).
The readings split fairly evenly between strengths and concerns: dental providers sits in the top 5.9% nationally, lead in tap water registers in the bottom 9.1% nationally, and home broadband subscription lands in the top 11.1% nationally. Modeled transportation resides in the bottom 12.4% nationally, modeled colon screening lies in the top 9.5% nationally, and grocery settles in the top 12.7% nationally. Modeled energy burden stands in the bottom 12.2% nationally. Working the other way, modeled pfas is in the top 0.5% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site rests in the bottom 4.6% nationally. Modeled expected annual loss sits in the top 10.7% nationally.
In plain language, 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. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. ZIP 48306, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall.
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 68%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 73%
11%
Disability
healthier than 84%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 89%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 47%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 49%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 50%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 67%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 32%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 63%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 74%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 61%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 63%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Disability
healthier than 69%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 70%
5%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 30%
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 ›
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.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 81.7 ± 1.5 years. The 48 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 79.0 years — 2.7 years above them.
Ranked #1,025 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
48094
Michiganshares a border
Score 56.20
Closest healthier
48306
Michiganshares a border
Score 72.00
Similar health profile
48114
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 61.78
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 | 29.4% | 26.7–32.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.2% | 32.1–38.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.1% | 9.2–11.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–11.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–6.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.5 |
| Depression among adults | 25.4% | 22.4–28.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.7% | 8.5–11.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.1% | 34.8–41.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.8% | 29.4–38.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.0% | 2.8–3.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.1% | 6.6–9.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.8% | 4.0–5.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.4% | 76.7–81.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.1% | 79.4–84.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.8% | 88.4–91.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.3% | 68.7–75.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 75.5% | 73.0–77.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.8% | 74.3–84.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.7% | 15.1–20.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.7% | 10.0–13.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 21.2% | 18.4–24.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.2% | 29.4–36.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.6% | 13.7–17.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.2% | 13.5–17.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.3% | 10.9–13.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.9% | 10.5–13.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 27.5% | 24.5–30.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.6% | 5.9–7.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.4% | 10.0–13.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.5–3.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–3.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.3% | 17.5–23.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.3% | 7.8–11.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.3–9.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.8% | 6.6–9.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.8% | 26.8–35.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.7–6.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 43.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 22.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 12.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 53.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 22.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 45.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $107,776 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $383,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,378 | $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 | 81.7 yr ± 0.79 | 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 0.79 years of 81.7, 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