ZIP code
49825
in Eben Junction, MichiganPopulation 328
55.30/ 100
Ranked #9,086 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 28%)
Ranked #252 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 26%)
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.
Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
10 per million
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
23.9 mi
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.1%
in the bottom 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
83.8 mi
in the top 4.8% 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 ›Park land
27.1%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
8.6 days/year
in the bottom 5.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS6thDefinition & 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 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST11thUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
0.06%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS7thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›The read
Eben Junction, Michigan (ZIP 49825), on the composite measure, lands in the top 28% healthiest ZIPs nationally (9,086th) and the top 26% of Michigan (252nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The profile cuts both ways, and the readings bear that out: homeownership is at the national maximum, modeled air-toxics cancer risk rests in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility sits in the top 3.3% nationally. Modeled arsenic registers in the bottom 3.7% nationally, distance to a Superfund site lands in the top 4.8% nationally, and park land resides in the top 5.3% nationally. Modeled humid heat lies in the bottom 5.7% nationally, and industrial-pollution burden settles in the bottom 6.0% nationally. Modeled disaster risk stands in the bottom 6.6% nationally, and transportation noise is in the bottom 7.4% nationally.
Set against the neighboring ZIPs, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In everyday language, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. 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. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. A healthier neighbor overall sits at ZIP 49806, just across the boundary.
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
in the top 0.5%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 66%
11%
Disability
healthier than 65%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 45%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 54%
16%
Holding it back
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 7%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 81%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 65%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 68%
8%
Disability
healthier than 67%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 53%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 58%
16%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 4%
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
49806
Michiganshares a border
Score 56.40
Closest healthier
49822
Michiganshares a border
Score 55.86
Similar health profile
18624
Pennsylvania95% similar profile
Score 55.32
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 | 33.8% | 29.9–37.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.2% | 33.8–43.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.7% | 9.6–11.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.1–13.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.4% | 6.4–8.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.8% | 7.3–10.6 |
| Depression among adults | 26.7% | 22.8–30.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.0% | 10.2–14.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.4% | 33.7–43.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.0% | 28.0–44.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.6% | 3.1–4.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.2% | 5.7–8.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.4% | 4.2–6.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.1% | 75.7–82.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.2% | 77.6–84.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.2% | 88.5–91.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.4% | 67.4–76.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.7% | 67.1–73.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.5% | 69.6–83.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 12.9–19.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.8% | 12.8–19.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.2% | 18.7–28.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.3% | 26.6–40.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 18.1% | 15.2–21.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.7% | 14.6–19.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.6% | 12.5–17.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.2% | 11.3–15.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.1% | 25.6–35.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.8% | 6.8–8.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.8% | 6.7–9.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.2% | 11.7–16.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.6% | 3.1–4.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.6–4.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.1% | 17.4–25.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.0–14.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.9% | 8.5–13.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.3–11.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.3–7.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.6% | 24.5–35.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.5–8.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 2.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 30.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 18.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 46.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 19.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 35.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $77,250 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $213,900 | $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 | 80.6 yr ± 1.33 | 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 1.33 years of 80.6, 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