ZIP code
48733
in Fairgrove, MichiganPopulation 1,648
45.10/ 100
Ranked #22,298 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 30%)
Ranked #787 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 19%)
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.
Arsenic in groundwater
32.1%
in the top 2.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Walkability
2.5 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 11.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST8thUS11thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
30.3 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 13.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS87thDefinition & 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 ›Energy-cost burden
4.9%
in the top 10.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS90thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
42.1%
in the top 12.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS88thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
15.2%
in the bottom 23% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS23rdDefinition & 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 ›The read
In its overall standing, Fairgrove, Michigan (ZIP 48733) lands in the bottom 30% nationally (22,298th) and the bottom 19% of Michigan (787th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: modeled disaster risk is in the bottom 12.1% nationally, and homeownership sits in the top 16% nationally. On the other side, modeled arsenic lands in the top 2.7% nationally, walkability lies in the bottom 11.0% nationally, and fatal road crashes stands in the top 13.0% nationally. Modeled energy burden rests in the top 10.2% nationally, and obesity registers in the top 12.5% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility resides at the national minimum, shared with about 31% of ZIPs. Recreation settles at the national minimum, shared with about 35% of ZIPs. Physicians is at the national minimum, shared with about 38% of ZIPs.
Put simply, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. On the overall standing, ZIP 48701, just across the boundary, ranks healthier.
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 78%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 68%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 75%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 24%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 14%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 37%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 13%
8%
Disability
healthier than 32%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 27%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 71%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 21%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 13%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 34%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 23%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 30%
8%
Disability
healthier than 23%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 30%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 22%
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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 77.7; chronic-disease standing 23.8 — 54 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #2,186 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
48701
Michiganshares a border
Score 47.92
Closest healthier
48757
Michiganshares a border
Score 53.73
Similar health profile
24729
West Virginia99% similar profile
Score 44.48
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 | 33.7% | 30.0–37.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.6% | 35.3–43.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.3% | 9.3–11.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.8% | 10.3–13.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.7% | 7.6–9.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.6% | 9.0–12.2 |
| Depression among adults | 27.8% | 23.9–31.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.6% | 11.6–15.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.2% | 33.8–42.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 42.1% | 33.8–50.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 13.5% | 10.9–16.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.7% | 6.3–9.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.9% | 75.9–81.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.8% | 76.2–82.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.6% | 84.7–88.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.3% | 63.5–72.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 64.9% | 61.3–68.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.3% | 68.8–83.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 13.0–19.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.9% | 14.7–20.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 28.1% | 23.2–33.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.5% | 29.4–42.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.5% | 19.1–25.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.7% | 16.3–20.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.4% | 14.1–18.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.2% | 14.0–18.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 35.6% | 30.6–40.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.1–10.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.9% | 8.5–11.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.0% | 14.4–19.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.5% | 3.9–5.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.7% | 4.9–6.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.1% | 19.4–26.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.8% | 13.1–18.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.6% | 12.9–18.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.6–13.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.2–9.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.8% | 26.6–36.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.2–9.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 26.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 90.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 51.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 23.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 42.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $60,500 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $109,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $900 | $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 | 77.1 yr ± 1.32 | 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 1.32 years of 77.1, 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