ZIP code
49056
in Grand Junction, MichiganPopulation 4,478
41.14/ 100
Ranked #25,922 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 19%)
Ranked #890 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 8.6%)
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.
Energy-cost burden
5.0%
in the top 9.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Independent-living disability
11.8%
in the top 12.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS88thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
22.1%
in the top 16% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS84thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
18.6%
in the top 16% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS84thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Crowded housing
4.3%
in the top 17% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS83rdDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
26.4%
in the top 18% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS82ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
5.6%
in the top 16% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS84thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
7.2%
in the top 18% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS82ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, Grand Junction, Michigan (ZIP 49056) lands in the bottom 19% nationally (25,922nd) and the bottom 8.6% of Michigan (890th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: outer-floodplain exposure rests at the national minimum, shared with about 36% of ZIPs. On the other side, modeled energy burden registers in the top 9.3% nationally, independent living disability resides in the top 12.5% nationally, and food insecurity settles in the top 16% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff is in the top 16% nationally, and pfas sits in the top 17% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability lands in the top 16% nationally, and crowded housing lies in the top 17% nationally. Modeled transportation stands in the top 17% nationally. Recreation rests at the national minimum, shared with about 35% of ZIPs.
Against the wider neighborhood, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, 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. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. Outer-floodplain exposure is land with a lower but real 1-in-500 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "500-year floodplain". On the overall standing, ZIP 49010, 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 92%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 43%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 20%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 25%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 16%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 90%
14%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 17%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 11%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 14%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 14%
8%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
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 91.8 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 19.5 — 72 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #933 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
49010
Michiganshares a border
Score 50.07
Closest healthier
49013
Michiganshares a border
Score 41.50
Similar health profile
04777
Maine99% similar profile
Score 35.95
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 | 33.5% | 30.8–36.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.7% | 36.6–43.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.1% | 8.4–9.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.2% | 11.1–13.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.9% | 8.1–9.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.7% | 10.5–13.1 |
| Depression among adults | 28.0% | 25.2–31.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.0% | 13.3–16.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.4% | 34.2–40.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.1% | 35.6–46.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.6% | 4.2–5.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 17.7% | 15.0–20.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.9% | 9.3–12.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.9% | 75.5–80.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.3% | 76.6–81.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.1% | 83.5–86.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.8% | 62.0–69.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.4% | 58.6–64.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.6% | 68.9–79.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.3% | 13.2–17.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 20.5% | 18.1–23.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 32.6% | 28.7–37.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.0% | 29.6–38.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.4% | 23.6–29.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.8% | 18.0–21.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.1% | 16.4–20.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.6% | 16.8–20.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 38.8% | 35.0–42.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.6–13.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.1% | 17.0–21.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.6% | 5.1–6.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.6–8.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.4% | 21.6–27.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 22.1% | 19.4–25.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 22.4% | 19.6–25.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.3% | 13.5–17.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 11.1% | 9.9–12.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.2% | 29.5–37.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 10.1–12.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 20.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 27.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.5% | 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 | 88.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 40.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 15.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 37.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $63,438 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $158,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 76.2 yr ± 0.82 | 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 0.82 years of 76.2, 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