ZIP code
03304
in Bow, New HampshirePopulation 8,335
68.63/ 100
Ranked #851 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 2.7%)
Ranked #4 of 243 New Hampshire ZIPs (top 1.7%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Median household income
$172,857
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
61.5%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
5.6%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
3.9%
in the bottom 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Mammography
84.8%
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
5.7%
in the bottom 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
26.5%
in the bottom 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.8%
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
10.7%
in the bottom 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
9.4%
in the bottom 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›The read
Bow, New Hampshire (ZIP 03304), by its composite score, sits in the top 2.7% healthiest ZIPs nationally (851st) and the top 1.7% of New Hampshire (4th).
The measures fall on both sides for this area, fairly evenly: household income stands in the top 2.1% nationally, and modeled food insecurity registers in the bottom 0.9% nationally. Modeled transportation settles in the bottom 1.3% nationally, and mammography sits in the top 0.7% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity lies in the bottom 1.9% nationally, loneliness rests in the bottom 1.9% nationally, and utility shutoff resides in the bottom 2.8% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health is in the bottom 1.5% nationally, and cognitive disability lands in the bottom 3.0% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled arsenic stands in the top 0.3% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, arsenic runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Among the ZIPs nearby, none ranks healthier overall than this one.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 87%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 97%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Disability
healthier than 96%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 76%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 30%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Disability
healthier than 97%
7%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 47%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 15%
14%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
2 of our published findings list this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 79.5 ± 2.2 years. A median household income of $172,857 predicts 82.2 years — 2.7 years below.
Ranked #3,784 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 29.9; chronic-disease standing 86.7 — 57 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,089 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
03046
New Hampshireshares a border
Score 63.06
Similar health profile
02464
Massachusetts100% similar profile
Score 71.22
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 26.6% | 24.0–29.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 29.5% | 26.5–32.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.3% | 9.4–11.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.5% | 9.2–11.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.3–5.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.6% | 3.8–5.6 |
| Depression among adults | 22.1% | 19.1–25.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 7.6% | 6.5–8.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 32.9% | 29.8–36.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 30.4% | 25.8–35.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.5% | 2.2–2.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.5% | 5.4–7.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.4% | 3.5–5.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.3% | 73.0–79.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.7% | 77.8–83.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.2% | 89.6–92.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.2% | 69.0–75.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 76.2% | 74.0–78.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 84.8% | 81.1–88.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.5% | 13.1–18.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.5% | 5.8–9.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 15.0% | 12.3–18.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.9% | 27.4–34.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 10.7% | 8.9–12.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.1% | 11.3–14.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.6% | 8.3–11.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.4% | 7.9–11.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 21.8% | 18.8–25.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.3–6.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.2–5.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.2% | 7.7–10.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.2% | 1.9–2.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.7% | 2.4–3.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.5% | 15.9–21.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 4.4–7.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 3.7% | 2.8–4.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.6–7.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 3.9% | 3.3–4.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 26.5% | 23.2–30.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.8% | 3.1–4.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 2.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 6.7% (2.0–13.3%) n=243 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 1.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.1% (2.2–14.5%) n=242 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 1.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 4.5% (1.3–9.8%) n=243 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 60.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 38.8% (21.4–60.3%) n=243 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.8% (0.0–6.0%) n=243 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.5% (0.0–8.4%) n=243 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 92.9% (85.7–99.0%) n=243 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 18.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 27.1% (17.2–36.4%) n=243 |
| Homeownership rate | 87.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 86.0% (62.6–96.9%) n=243 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–3.1%) n=243 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 3.1% (0.5–7.1%) n=243 |
| Single-parent households | 55.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 60.9% (46.9–76.5%) n=243 |
| Population 65+ | 17.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.1% (15.1–37.1%) n=243 |
| Median age | 41.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 47.1 yr (38.4–58.4) n=243 |
| Median household income | $172,857 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $98,684 ($67,733–$147,723) n=235 |
| Median home value | $506,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $371,500 ($252,560–$570,440) n=237 |
| Median gross rent | $1,539 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,360 ($1,037–$1,893) n=197 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.5 yr ± 1.10 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 81.2 yr (78.0–85.7) n=242 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 1.10 years of 79.5, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured