ZIP code
49440
in Muskegon, MichiganPopulation 1,492
35.98/ 100
Ranked #29,005 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 9.6%)
Ranked #932 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 4.3%)
Ranked #13 of 13 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI ZIPs (bottom 7.7%)
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.
Recreation access
3.8 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Grocery access
0.76 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Outpatient-care access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics 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 ›Elder-services access
0.76 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Obesity
48.4%
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Physician access
3.8 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ 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 ›Homeownership rate
25.4%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Tooth loss
25.9%
in the top 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 49440, one of several in Muskegon, Michigan, overall, ranks in the bottom 9.6% nationally (29,005th) and the bottom 4.3% of Michigan (932nd).
Several serious readings shape the profile and deserve first mention: modeled obesity settles in the top 1.3% nationally, industrial-pollution burden is in the top 3.7% nationally, and tooth loss sits in the top 6.2% nationally. Modeled tree cover lands at the national minimum. On the better side, recreation lies in the top 0.4% nationally, and grocery stands in the top 0.7% nationally. Outpatient rests in the top 0.8% nationally, and elder services registers in the top 1.3% nationally. Physicians resides in the top 2.3% nationally, and modeled disaster risk settles in the bottom 4.2% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, recreation runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. ZIP 49441, just across the boundary, comes out 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 Muskegon-Norton Shores, MI metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 81%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 56%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 38%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 9%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 6%
8%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 29%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 83%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 60%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 8%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 7%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 6%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 3%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 78%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.00%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 11%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 22%
11%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.00%
8%
Disability
in the bottom 0.00%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the bottom 0.00%
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
49441
Michiganshares a border
Score 50.32
Closest healthier
49442
Michiganshares a border
Score 37.89
Similar health profile
35764
Alabama99% similar profile
Score 41.89
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 | 34.3% | 31.1–37.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 41.6% | 37.8–45.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.9% | 8.0–9.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 13.3% | 11.7–14.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.4% | 8.2–10.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.7% | 10.7–15.0 |
| Depression among adults | 29.3% | 25.5–33.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.5% | 14.4–19.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.7% | 33.8–41.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 48.4% | 41.9–55.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 25.9% | 21.7–30.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.3% | 8.2–12.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.2% | 76.6–81.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.1% | 77.0–83.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.0% | 82.8–87.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.5% | 59.4–69.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 56.6% | 52.9–60.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.0% | 64.8–79.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.4% | 12.0–17.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 21.7% | 18.3–25.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 35.0% | 30.0–40.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.6% | 34.0–45.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 28.5% | 24.7–33.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 20.6% | 18.2–23.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.3% | 15.9–20.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.9% | 16.3–21.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.3% | 35.5–45.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.0–10.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.9% | 11.1–14.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.4% | 17.6–23.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.4–7.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.9% | 6.9–9.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.4% | 20.9–28.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 24.7% | 20.8–29.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 27.5% | 23.3–32.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.6% | 15.0–20.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.5% | 10.8–14.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.6% | 28.7–38.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 13.7% | 11.8–15.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 18.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 35.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 8.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 36.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 25.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 6.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 59.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 17.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 33.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $46,808 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $176,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $915 | $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 | 73.8 yr ± 1.36 | 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 1.36 years of 73.8, 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