Skip to main content
Search for Indicators

Whitmore Lake & Northfield Township Dashboard

Data on this dashboard are for Zip Code 48189 and two census tracts, 26161465000 (shown as 4650 on map below) and 26161466000 (shown as 4660 on map below). Zip Code 48189 is the Whitmore Lake community, which is located across Washtenaw and Livingston County. The two census tracts are Northfield Township. Census tract 26161465000 roughly corresponds to the portion of Whitmore Lake that is within Washtenaw county. Census tract 26161465000 roughly corresponds to the rural area of Northfield Township, outside of Whitmore Lake.

                                   

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.

Compared to Distribution

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

Access to Health Care

Access to Health Care

Access to Health Care

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Value
Compared to:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup County: Washtenaw

69.8%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (77.7%), Washtenaw has a value of 69.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(77.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (69.8%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (72.1%).
Prior Value
(72.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Zip Code: 48189

69.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 69.5% which is in the worst 25% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.4% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 74.2%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 69.5% which is in the worst 25% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.9% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 71.4%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (68.5%), 48189 has a value of 69.5% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (73.6%), 48189 has a value of 69.5% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(73.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Census Tract: 26161465000

65.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 65.7% which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 65.7% which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 68.7%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (68.5%), 26161465000 has a value of 65.7% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (73.6%), 26161465000 has a value of 65.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(73.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup Census Tract: 26161466000

70.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 70.4% which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 70.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 68.7%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (68.5%), 26161466000 has a value of 70.4% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (73.6%), 26161466000 has a value of 70.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(73.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Adults without Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults without Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults without Health Insurance County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults without Health Insurance County: Washtenaw

5.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.4%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), Washtenaw has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults without Health Insurance Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults without Health Insurance Zip Code: 48189

5.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.3% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.3%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.7% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.2%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (5.7%), 48189 has a value of 5.7%.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(5.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), 48189 has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults without Health Insurance Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults without Health Insurance Census Tract: 26161465000

6.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.7%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (5.7%), 26161465000 has a value of 6.8% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(5.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults without Health Insurance Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults without Health Insurance Census Tract: 26161466000

4.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 4.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.7%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 4.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (5.7%), 26161466000 has a value of 4.3% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(5.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), 26161466000 has a value of 4.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss

Value
Compared to:

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss County: Washtenaw

6.8%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.1%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), Washtenaw has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Zip Code: 48189

8.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 8.7% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.2% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.1%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 970 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 8.7% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.6% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.6%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,230 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (6.8%), 48189 has a value of 8.7% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(6.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), 48189 has a value of 8.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Census Tract: 26161465000

10.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 10.4% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.0%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,737 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 10.4% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.4% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.6%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,233 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (6.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 10.4% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(6.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), 26161465000 has a value of 10.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss Census Tract: 26161466000

7.2%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 7.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.0%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,737 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 7.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.4% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.6%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,233 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (6.8%), 26161466000 has a value of 7.2% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(6.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), 26161466000 has a value of 7.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Adults who Visited a Dentist

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults who Visited a Dentist

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Visited a Dentist County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who Visited a Dentist County: Washtenaw

72.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 72.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 66.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 64.9%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 72.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), Washtenaw has a value of 72.7% which is higher and better.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who Visited a Dentist Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who Visited a Dentist Zip Code: 48189

73.1%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 73.1% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 67.6% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 64.5%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 73.1% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 62.7% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.9%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,409 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (72.7%), 48189 has a value of 73.1% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(72.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), 48189 has a value of 73.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who Visited a Dentist Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults who Visited a Dentist Census Tract: 26161465000

69.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 69.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.6% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 69.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.4%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,332 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (72.7%), 26161465000 has a value of 69.3% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(72.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 69.3% which is higher and better.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who Visited a Dentist Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults who Visited a Dentist Census Tract: 26161466000

76.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 76.7% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.6% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 76.7% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.4%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,332 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (72.7%), 26161466000 has a value of 76.7% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(72.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), 26161466000 has a value of 76.7% which is higher and better.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Children Enrolled in Medicaid who Visited the Dentist the Past Year County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Children Enrolled in Medicaid who Visited the Dentist the Past Year County: Washtenaw

49.1%
%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (49.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (48.8%).
Prior Value
(48.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the State of Michigan Target (70%), the target has not been met.
State of Michigan Target
(70%)
<div>This target is set forth by the State of Michigan. </div>

Children Enrolled in Medicaid who Visited the Dentist the Past Year Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Children Enrolled in Medicaid who Visited the Dentist the Past Year Zip Code: 48189

46.5%
%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, 48189 (46.5%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (46.8%).
Prior Value
(46.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the 48189 value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the State of Michigan Target (70%), the target has not been met.
State of Michigan Target
(70%)
<div>This target is set forth by the State of Michigan. </div>

Access to Health Care

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Value
Compared to:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 County: Washtenaw

81.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 81.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 81.8%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 81.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 81.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), Washtenaw has a value of 81.3% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Zip Code: 48189

85.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 85.4% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 83.7% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.4%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 85.4% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.1% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.0%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,400 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (81.3%), 48189 has a value of 85.4% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(81.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), 48189 has a value of 85.4% which is higher and better.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Census Tract: 26161465000

83.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.3%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,744 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.2%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,315 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (81.3%), 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(81.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 Census Tract: 26161466000

85.9%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 85.9% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.3%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,744 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 85.9% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.1% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.2%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,315 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (81.3%), 26161466000 has a value of 85.9% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(81.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), 26161466000 has a value of 85.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Colon Cancer Screening

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Colon Cancer Screening

Value
Compared to:

Colon Cancer Screening County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Colon Cancer Screening County: Washtenaw

71.5%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 71.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 68.2%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 71.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (66.4%), Washtenaw has a value of 71.5% which is higher and better.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Colon Cancer Screening Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Colon Cancer Screening Zip Code: 48189

68.0%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 68.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.5% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 66.7%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 971 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 68.0% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.3% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 60.7%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,309 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (71.5%), 48189 has a value of 68.0% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(71.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (66.4%), 48189 has a value of 68.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Colon Cancer Screening Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Colon Cancer Screening Census Tract: 26161465000

66.7%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 66.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 64.6%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,741 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 66.7% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.6% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 59.6%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,298 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (71.5%), 26161465000 has a value of 66.7% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(71.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (66.4%), 26161465000 has a value of 66.7% which is higher and better.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Colon Cancer Screening Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Colon Cancer Screening Census Tract: 26161466000

71.1%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 71.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 64.6%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,741 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 71.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.6% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 59.6%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,298 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (71.5%), 26161466000 has a value of 71.1% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(71.5%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (66.4%), 26161466000 has a value of 71.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Value
Compared to:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 County: Washtenaw

73.8%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 73.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 70.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 69.3%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 73.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 70.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), Washtenaw has a value of 73.8% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Zip Code: 48189

74.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 74.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.5% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.2%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 970 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 74.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.9% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 72.4%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,250 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (73.8%), 48189 has a value of 74.4% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(73.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), 48189 has a value of 74.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Census Tract: 26161465000

74.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 74.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.8% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 74.1%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,736 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 74.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.4%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,248 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (73.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 74.6% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(73.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), 26161465000 has a value of 74.6% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 Census Tract: 26161466000

76.0%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 76.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.8% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 74.1%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,736 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 76.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.4%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,248 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (73.8%), 26161466000 has a value of 76.0% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(73.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), 26161466000 has a value of 76.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

Access to Health Care

Cholesterol Test History

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Cholesterol Test History

Value
Compared to:

Cholesterol Test History County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Cholesterol Test History County: Washtenaw

84.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 84.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 85.3%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 84.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), Washtenaw has a value of 84.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cholesterol Test History Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Cholesterol Test History Zip Code: 48189

86.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 86.2% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86.0% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 84.4%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 86.2% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.2% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 81.9%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (84.0%), 48189 has a value of 86.2% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(84.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), 48189 has a value of 86.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cholesterol Test History Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Cholesterol Test History Census Tract: 26161465000

83.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86.0% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.3%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.9%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (84.0%), 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(84.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), 26161465000 has a value of 83.6% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Cholesterol Test History Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Cholesterol Test History Census Tract: 26161466000

89.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 89.6% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86.0% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.3%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 89.6% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.9%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (84.0%), 26161466000 has a value of 89.6% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(84.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), 26161466000 has a value of 89.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females

Value
Compared to:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females County: Washtenaw

44.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 44.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 39.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 38.1%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 44.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 36.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 33.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), Washtenaw has a value of 44.3% which is higher and better.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Zip Code: 48189

42.1%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 42.1% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 40.1% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 37.4%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 970 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 42.1% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 37.2% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 33.8%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,181 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (44.3%), 48189 has a value of 42.1% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(44.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), 48189 has a value of 42.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Census Tract: 26161465000

42.2%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 42.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 39.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 34.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,732 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 42.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 36.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 31.9%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,137 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (44.3%), 26161465000 has a value of 42.2% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(44.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), 26161465000 has a value of 42.2% which is higher and better.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females Census Tract: 26161466000

47.1%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 47.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 39.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 34.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,732 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 47.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 36.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 31.9%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,137 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (44.3%), 26161466000 has a value of 47.1% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(44.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), 26161466000 has a value of 47.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males

Value
Compared to:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males County: Washtenaw

51.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 51.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 43.7%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 51.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 42.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), Washtenaw has a value of 51.7% which is higher and better.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Zip Code: 48189

52.5%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 52.5% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.9% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 42.9%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 970 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 52.5% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50%  have a value higher than 43.2% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.3%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,188 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (51.7%), 48189 has a value of 52.5% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(51.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), 48189 has a value of 52.5% which is higher and better.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Census Tract: 26161465000

50.0%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 50.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.0% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,736 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 50.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 42.8% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 37.1%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,188 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (51.7%), 26161465000 has a value of 50.0% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(51.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), 26161465000 has a value of 50.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males Census Tract: 26161466000

53.9%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 53.9% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.0% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.9%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,736 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 53.9% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50%  have a value higher than 42.8% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value lower than 37.1%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,188 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (51.7%), 26161466000 has a value of 53.9% which is higher and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(51.7%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), 26161466000 has a value of 53.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Access to Health Care

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Value
Compared to:

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Washtenaw

80.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 80.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.9%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to the MI Value (76.3%), Washtenaw has a value of 80.9% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(76.3%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (78.3%), Washtenaw has a value of 80.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (80.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (78.2%).
Prior Value
(78.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Access to Health Care

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Washtenaw

178
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 178 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 50 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 32.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 178 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 47 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 29.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,984 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (78), Washtenaw has a value of 178 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (178) is greater and better than the previously measured value (176).
Prior Value
(176)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Access to Health Care

Adults with a Usual Source of Health Care

Value
Compared to:

Access to Health Care

Adults with a Usual Source of Health Care

Value
Compared to:

Adults with a Usual Source of Health Care County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults with a Usual Source of Health Care County: Washtenaw

88.7%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (87.6%), Washtenaw has a value of 88.7% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(87.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (84.0%), Washtenaw has a value of 88.7% which is higher and better.
US Value
(84.0% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (88.7%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (88.2%).
Prior Value
(88.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Physical Activity

Physical Activity

Physical Activity

Adults who are Sedentary

Value
Compared to:

Physical Activity

Adults who are Sedentary

Value
Compared to:

Adults who are Sedentary County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who are Sedentary County: Washtenaw

14.7%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (22.6%), Washtenaw has a value of 14.7% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(22.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (23.4%), Washtenaw has a value of 14.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.4% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (14.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.6%).
Prior Value
(14.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (21.8%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(21.8%)

Adults who are Sedentary Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who are Sedentary Zip Code: 48189

16.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 16.5% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.3% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.4%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 16.5% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.0% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.2%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the US Value (23.7%), 48189 has a value of 16.5% which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (21.8%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(21.8%)

Adults who are Sedentary Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults who are Sedentary Census Tract: 26161465000

17.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 17.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 17.0% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.2%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the US Value (23.7%), 26161465000 has a value of 17.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (21.8%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(21.8%)

Adults who are Sedentary Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults who are Sedentary Census Tract: 26161466000

14.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 14.6% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 14.6% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.2%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the US Value (23.7%), 26161466000 has a value of 14.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (21.8%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(21.8%)

Physical Activity

Access to Exercise Opportunities

Value
Compared to:

Physical Activity

Access to Exercise Opportunities

Value
Compared to:

Access to Exercise Opportunities County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Access to Exercise Opportunities County: Washtenaw

90.1%
(2024)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 90.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 72.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.0%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 90.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 47.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,096 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (85.6%), Washtenaw has a value of 90.1% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(85.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (84.1%), Washtenaw has a value of 90.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(84.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (90.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (87.8%).
Prior Value
(87.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Food Access

Food Access

Food Access

Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Food Access

Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption County: Washtenaw

16.6%
(2013-2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (14.9%), Washtenaw has a value of 16.6% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(14.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (16.6%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (22.4%).
Prior Value
(22.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Food Access

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week

Value
Compared to:

Food Access

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week County: Washtenaw

14.6%
% of adults
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (14.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (18.9%).
Prior Value
(18.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who Eat Fast Food More Than Once per Week Zip Code: 48189

23.0%
% of adults
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (14.6%), 48189 has a value of 23.0% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(14.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw, MI county value.

Food Access

Child Low Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Food Access

Child Low Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Child Low Fruit and Vegetable Consumption County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Child Low Fruit and Vegetable Consumption County: Washtenaw

16.0%
%
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (16.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (12.9%).
Prior Value
(12.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Food Access

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost

Value
Compared to:

Food Access

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost

Value
Compared to:

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost County: Washtenaw

7.2%
% of adults in family
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (7.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (5.3%).
Prior Value
(5.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults in Family Reduced Food Intake Due to Cost Zip Code: 48189

4.7%
% of adults in family
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (7.2%), 48189 has a value of 4.7% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw, MI county value.

Food Access

Food Environment Index

Value
Compared to:

Food Access

Food Environment Index

Value
Compared to:

Food Environment Index County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Food Environment Index County: Washtenaw

8.2
(2024)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 8.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 7.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.2.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 82 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 8.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 7.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 6.9.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,108 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (7.2), Washtenaw has a value of 8.2 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(7.2)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (7.7), Washtenaw has a value of 8.2 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (8.2) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.1).
Prior Value
(8.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Transportation

Transportation

Transportation

Households without a Vehicle

Value
Compared to:

Transportation

Households without a Vehicle

Value
Compared to:

Households without a Vehicle County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Washtenaw

8.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 8.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.4%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 8.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Washtenaw has a value of 8.1% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (8.3%), Washtenaw has a value of 8.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households without a Vehicle Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle Zip Code: 48189

2.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 2.6% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 4.5% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.1%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 976 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 2.6% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.8% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.2%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,399 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (8.1%), 48189 has a value of 2.6% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(8.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 48189 value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households without a Vehicle Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle Census Tract: 26161465000

1.1%
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 1.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.4% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.6%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,736 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 1.1% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.2% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.8%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,140 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (8.2%), 26161465000 has a value of 1.1% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(8.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161465000 value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households without a Vehicle Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle Census Tract: 26161466000

3.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 3.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 4.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.4%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,887 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 3.3% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 4.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 82,413 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (8.1%), 26161466000 has a value of 3.3% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(8.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161466000 value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Transportation

Mean Travel Time to Work

Value
Compared to:

Transportation

Mean Travel Time to Work

Value
Compared to:

Mean Travel Time to Work County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Mean Travel Time to Work County: Washtenaw

23.6
Minutes
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 23.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.6.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 23.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,131 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (24.5), Washtenaw has a value of 23.6 which is lower and better.
MI Value
(24.5)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (26.7), Washtenaw has a value of 23.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(26.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Mean Travel Time to Work Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Mean Travel Time to Work Zip Code: 48189

27.0
Minutes
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 27.0 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.4 while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 29.4.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 948 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 27.0 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.1 while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.0.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 30,389 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (23.6), 48189 has a value of 27.0 which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(23.6)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 48189 value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Mean Travel Time to Work Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Mean Travel Time to Work Census Tract: 26161465000

26.2
Minutes
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 26.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.5 while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.9.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,738 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 26.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.8 while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.0.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,164 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (24.2), 26161465000 has a value of 26.2 which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(24.2)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161465000 value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Mean Travel Time to Work Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Mean Travel Time to Work Census Tract: 26161466000

32.7
Minutes
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 32.7 which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.2 while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.9.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,895 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 32.7 which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.8 while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.7.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 82,376 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (23.6), 26161466000 has a value of 32.7 which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(23.6)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161466000 value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Transportation

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation

Value
Compared to:

Transportation

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation

Value
Compared to:

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation County: Washtenaw

3.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 3.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.2%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 3.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.1%.
U.S. Counties
(2015-2019)
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (1.1%), Washtenaw has a value of 3.9% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(1.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (3.8%), Washtenaw has a value of 3.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(3.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Zip Code: 48189

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (3.9%), 48189 has a value of 0.0% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(3.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 48189 value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Census Tract: 26161465000

0.0%
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (5.1%), 26161465000 has a value of 0.0% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161465000 value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Workers Commuting by Public Transportation Census Tract: 26161466000

0.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (3.9%), 26161466000 has a value of 0.0% which is lower and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(3.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161466000 value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

Transportation

Workers who Drive Alone to Work

Value
Compared to:

Transportation

Workers who Drive Alone to Work

Value
Compared to:

Workers who Drive Alone to Work County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Workers who Drive Alone to Work County: Washtenaw

63.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 63.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 80.8%.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 63.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 82.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (77.1%), Washtenaw has a value of 63.4% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(77.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (71.7%), Washtenaw has a value of 63.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(71.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Zip Code: 48189

73.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 73.8% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.6% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 83.3%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 978 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 73.8% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 78.1% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 84.0%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 32,713 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (63.4%), 48189 has a value of 73.8% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(63.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 48189 value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Census Tract: 26161465000

88.5%
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 88.5% which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 83.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 87.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,748 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 88.5% which is in the worst 25% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.7% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 84.8%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 72,298 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (71.8%), 26161465000 has a value of 88.5% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(71.8%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161465000 value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Workers who Drive Alone to Work Census Tract: 26161466000

79.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 79.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 78.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 83.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,903 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 79.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 75.2% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 81.7%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 82,602 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (63.4%), 26161466000 has a value of 79.1% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(63.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161466000 value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Adults who Binge Drink

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Adults who Binge Drink

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Binge Drink County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who Binge Drink County: Washtenaw

17.4%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (16.9%), Washtenaw has a value of 17.4% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(16.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (17.0%), Washtenaw has a value of 17.4% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(17.0% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (17.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (16.6%).
Prior Value
(16.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Adults who Binge Drink Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who Binge Drink Zip Code: 48189

18.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 18.7% which is in the worst 25% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.7% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.9%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 18.7% which is in the worst 25% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.5% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.1%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (16.0%), 48189 has a value of 18.7% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (15.5%), 48189 has a value of 18.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who Binge Drink Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults who Binge Drink Census Tract: 26161465000

18.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 18.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 18.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.3%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (16.0%), 26161465000 has a value of 18.1% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (15.5%), 26161465000 has a value of 18.1% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Adults who Binge Drink Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults who Binge Drink Census Tract: 26161466000

16.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 16.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.2%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 16.2% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.5% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.3%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (16.0%), 26161466000 has a value of 16.2% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (15.5%), 26161466000 has a value of 16.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Adults who Smoke

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Adults who Smoke

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Smoke County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Adults who Smoke County: Washtenaw

9.2%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (16.9%), Washtenaw has a value of 9.2% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(16.9%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Washtenaw has a value of 9.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.0% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (9.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (9.6%).
Prior Value
(9.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

Adults who Smoke Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Adults who Smoke Zip Code: 48189

14.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 14.6% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.1% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.1%.
MI Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 972 Michigan zip codes.
Compared to U.S. Zip Codes, 48189 has a value of 14.6% which is in the best 50% of zip codes. Zip codes in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.8% while zip codes in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.1%.
U.S. Zip Codes
The distribution is based on data from 31,435 U.S. zip codes.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (10.6%), 48189 has a value of 14.6% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(10.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.5%), 48189 has a value of 14.6% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(13.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

Adults who Smoke Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Adults who Smoke Census Tract: 26161465000

15.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 15.8% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.6%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161465000 has a value of 15.8% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.1%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (10.6%), 26161465000 has a value of 15.8% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(10.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.5%), 26161465000 has a value of 15.8% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(13.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

Adults who Smoke Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Adults who Smoke Census Tract: 26161466000

11.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 11.5% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.3% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.6%.
MI Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 2,745 Michigan census tracts.
Compared to U.S. Census Tracts, 26161466000 has a value of 11.5% which is in the best 50% of census tracts. Census tracts in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.9% while census tracts in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.1%.
U.S. Census Tracts
The distribution is based on data from 68,167 U.S. census tracts.
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (10.6%), 26161466000 has a value of 11.5% which is higher and worse.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(10.6%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Compared to the US Value (13.5%), 26161466000 has a value of 11.5% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Misuse of Drugs

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Misuse of Drugs

Value
Compared to:

Misuse of Drugs County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Misuse of Drugs County: Washtenaw

5.1%
% of adults
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (5.1%) is less and better than the previously measured value (7.4%).
Prior Value
(7.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

Misuse of Drugs Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Misuse of Drugs Zip Code: 48189

0.0%
% of adults
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (5.1%), 48189 has a value of 0.0% which is lower and better.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(5.1%)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw, MI county value.

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Mental Health Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health & Substance Abuse

Mental Health Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health Provider Rate County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Mental Health Provider Rate County: Washtenaw

714
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to MI Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 714 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 201 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 137.
MI Counties
The distribution is based on data from 83 Michigan counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Washtenaw has a value of 714 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 137 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,956 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the MI Value (336), Washtenaw has a value of 714 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(336)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the prior value, Washtenaw (714) is greater and better than the previously measured value (652).
Prior Value
(652)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Demographics

Demographics

Demographics

Average Household Size

Value
Compared to:

Demographics

Average Household Size

Value
Compared to:

Average Household Size County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Average Household Size County: Washtenaw

2.40
Persons per household
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (2.50), Washtenaw has a value of 2.40.
MI Value
(2.50)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Compared to the US Value (2.60), Washtenaw has a value of 2.40.
US Value
(2.60)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Washtenaw value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Average Household Size Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Average Household Size Zip Code: 48189

2.20
Persons per household
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (2.40), 48189 has a value of 2.20.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(2.40)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 48189 value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Average Household Size Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:

Average Household Size Census Tract: 26161465000

2.50
Persons per household
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (2.50), 26161465000 has a value of 2.50.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(2.50)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161465000 value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Average Household Size Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:

Average Household Size Census Tract: 26161466000

2.70
Persons per household
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the Washtenaw, MI County Value (2.40), 26161466000 has a value of 2.70.
Washtenaw, MI County Value
(2.40)
The regional value is compared to the Washtenaw County value.
Over time, the 26161466000 value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Demographics

Households

Value
Compared to:

Demographics

Households

Value
Compared to:

Households County: Washtenaw

Current Value:

Households County: Washtenaw

148,704
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Washtenaw value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households Zip Code: 48189

Current Value:

Households Zip Code: 48189

6,024
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the 48189 value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households Census Tract: 26161465000

Current Value:
2,422
Households
(2015-2019)
Compared to:
Over time, the 26161465000 value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

Households Census Tract: 26161466000

Current Value:
951
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the 26161466000 value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.