ZIP code
54512
in Boulder Junction, WisconsinPopulation 1,461
59.46/ 100
Ranked #5,240 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 16%)
Ranked #111 of 763 Wisconsin ZIPs (top 14.6%)
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.
Loneliness
25.7%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Short sleep
24.9%
in the bottom 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.5%
in the bottom 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
5.6%
in the bottom 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
77.4%
in the top 0.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
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
25.5 mi
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Lack of transportation
4.4%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.8%
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
Boulder Junction, Wisconsin (ZIP 54512), by its overall standing, sits in the top 16% healthiest ZIPs nationally (5,240th) and the top 14.6% of Wisconsin (111th).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: modeled loneliness sits in the bottom 0.8% nationally, short sleep settles in the bottom 0.4% nationally, and utility shutoff registers in the bottom 1.6% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity stands in the bottom 1.6% nationally, recreation lands in the top 1.7% nationally, and modeled colon screening is in the top 0.9% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk resides in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility rests in the top 2.9% nationally. Modeled transportation lies in the bottom 3.2% nationally, and food insecurity sits in the bottom 6.6% nationally.
Defined in plain terms, 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. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 54557, 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
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 78%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 97%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 99%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 93%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 89%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 55%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 17%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 74%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 99%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 99%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 98%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 85%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 40%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 25%
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 97.2 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 17.2 — 80 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #497 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
54538
Wisconsinshares a border
Score 45.55
Closest healthier
54557
Wisconsinshares a border
Score 60.00
Similar health profile
12836
New York99% similar profile
Score 61.09
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 | 37.8% | 34.0–41.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.7% | 40.6–48.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 14.5% | 13.2–16.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.2% | 9.0–11.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.4% | 9.2–11.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.1–9.8 |
| Depression among adults | 20.7% | 17.7–23.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.3% | 12.3–16.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 44.9% | 40.6–49.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.6% | 30.5–42.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.8% | 6.1–9.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.2% | 4.1–6.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 85.3% | 82.7–87.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 83.5% | 80.7–86.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 92.6% | 91.5–93.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 77.4% | 73.4–81.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 72.5% | 69.3–75.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.7% | 74.4–86.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.5% | 12.0–17.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.9% | 9.8–14.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.6% | 23.5–32.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 24.9% | 20.3–29.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.7% | 15.1–20.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 11.6% | 10.1–13.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.4% | 12.6–16.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.9% | 8.6–11.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.1% | 28.1–36.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.3–11.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.5–8.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.9% | 14.5–19.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.9% | 3.4–4.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.6% | 4.0–5.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 16.4% | 13.7–19.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.8% | 6.2–9.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 6.6–10.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 4.6–6.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.4% | 3.8–5.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 25.7% | 21.7–30.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.5% | 2.9–4.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (3.6–16.0%) n=765 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.7% (2.4–14.9%) n=764 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.9% (2.3–12.6%) n=768 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 27.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.5% (12.7–44.0%) n=768 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.6% (0.9–5.6%) n=763 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.6% (0.8–9.0%) n=764 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (80.0–94.8%) n=764 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 16.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.8% (14.7–29.1%) n=764 |
| Homeownership rate | 75.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 81.3% (62.1–91.8%) n=764 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.7%) n=764 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.3–6.8%) n=768 |
| Single-parent households | 82.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 59.0% (47.7–72.8%) n=762 |
| Population 65+ | 34.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.4% (13.9–32.2%) n=768 |
| Median age | 60.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.2 yr (36.2–56.1) n=765 |
| Median household income | $75,147 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $75,147 ($57,542–$101,625) n=755 |
| Median home value | $294,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $231,900 ($160,140–$367,300) n=755 |
| Median gross rent | $945 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $914 ($696–$1,261) n=706 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.2 yr ± 1.86 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.4 yr (77.7–83.6) n=712 |
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 1.86 years of 79.2, 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