ZIP code
49802
in Kingsford, MichiganPopulation 5,975
52.87/ 100
Ranked #12,286 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 38%)
Ranked #371 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 38%)
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.
Distance to a community health center
30.2 mi
in the top 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest federally funded community health center, which serves patients regardless of ability to pay.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
86.2 mi
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & 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 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 6.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Outpatient-care access
0.48 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS92ndDefinition & 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
0.16 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Grocery access
0.16 per 1,000 residents
in the top 10.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS90thDefinition & 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 ›Child-care access
0.48 per 1,000 residents
in the top 11.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS89thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 11.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS88thDefinition & 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
0.75%
in the top 13.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS86thDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, Kingsford, Michigan (ZIP 49802) lands in the top 38% healthiest ZIPs nationally (12,286th) and the top 38% of Michigan (371st).
The profile opens on a set of genuinely favorable readings: distance to a Superfund site lands in the top 4.6% nationally, and dental providers registers in the top 5.1% nationally. Outpatient sits in the top 8.4% nationally, and elder services rests in the top 9.2% nationally. Grocery is in the top 10.3% nationally, and childcare stands in the top 11.4% nationally. On the other side, distance to a community health center settles in the top 4.0% nationally, and modeled expected annual loss lies in the top 6.7% nationally. Fiber broadband resides at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Modeled disaster risk lands in the top 11.8% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 54121, about 0.4 miles away.
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
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 75%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 68%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 88%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 74%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 41%
21%
Disability
healthier than 57%
7%
Holding it back
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 5%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 79%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 60%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 72%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 46%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Disability
healthier than 59%
7%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 19%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 2%
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
49801
Michiganshares a border
Score 50.16
Closest healthier
54121
Wisconsinabout 0.4 mi away
Score 54.51
Similar health profile
23021
Virginia95% similar profile
Score 52.33
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 | 33.1% | 29.3–36.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 37.7% | 33.3–41.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.2% | 10.1–12.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.0–12.7 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.8% | 6.8–8.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.5% | 7.2–9.8 |
| Depression among adults | 27.6% | 23.6–31.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.6% | 9.9–13.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.0% | 32.5–41.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.7% | 28.7–44.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 12.5% | 10.1–15.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.6% | 4.6–6.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.5% | 76.4–81.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.5% | 78.1–84.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.9% | 87.3–90.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.4% | 65.9–74.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 69.5% | 66.1–72.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.9% | 70.9–84.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.1% | 13.1–19.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.0% | 11.6–16.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.6% | 19.8–29.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.9% | 25.0–37.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.9% | 15.1–20.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.0% | 14.8–19.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.3–16.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.8% | 11.9–15.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 33.2% | 28.4–37.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.7% | 7.6–9.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.2–9.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.7% | 12.4–17.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–4.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.4% | 3.9–5.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.4% | 17.6–25.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.0% | 8.9–13.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.1–12.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.7% | 7.1–10.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.4–7.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.4% | 25.9–37.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.3–7.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 87.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 16.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 79.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 48.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 26.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 41.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $62,209 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $126,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $917 | $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 | 78.3 yr ± 1.05 | 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 1.05 years of 78.3, 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