ZIP code
06031
in Falls Village, ConnecticutPopulation 1,520
62.13/ 100
Ranked #3,439 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 10.8%)
Ranked #139 of 277 Connecticut ZIPs (bottom 50%)
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.
Expected annual disaster loss
$0
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.73 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Civic-institution access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
4.3%
in the top 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
46.1 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
27.5%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
74.5%
in the top 3.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST60thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
16.5 mi
in the top 6.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
70.3%
in the top 9.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST88thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
10.5%
in the bottom 7.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST40thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›The read
Falls Village, Connecticut (ZIP 06031) ranks in the top 10.8% healthiest ZIPs nationally (3,439th) and the bottom 50% of Connecticut (139th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
A balanced set of signals defines this area, not any single one: modeled expected annual loss stands at the national minimum, and elder services sits in the top 1.4% nationally. Civic resides in the top 2.0% nationally, and modeled loneliness stands in the bottom 5.0% nationally. Modeled colon screening sits in the top 3.8% nationally, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility resides in the top 6.9% nationally, and modeled tree cover stands in the top 9.0% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability sits in the bottom 7.3% nationally. By contrast, slow internet speeds resides in the top 2.9% nationally, and fatal road crashes stands in the top 5.0% nationally.
Against its neighbors, elder services runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For context, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 06039, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 77%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 97%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
Disability
healthier than 77%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 92%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 51%
21%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 98%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 81%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 62%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 98%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 53%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 49%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 10%
21%
Disability
healthier than 32%
7%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
06018
Connecticutshares a border
Score 51.13
Closest healthier
06039
Connecticutshares a border
Score 67.62
Similar health profile
12845
New York99% similar profile
Score 60.70
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 | 32.4% | 29.6–35.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.0% | 31.9–38.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.9% | 10.8–13.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.5% | 6.7–8.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.1% | 6.0–8.3 |
| Depression among adults | 21.6% | 19.0–24.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.9% | 9.5–12.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.4% | 39.0–46.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 28.9% | 24.5–34.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.2 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.8% | 7.2–10.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.7% | 4.6–6.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.0% | 78.4–83.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 83.3% | 80.9–85.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 92.4% | 91.3–93.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 74.5% | 70.9–78.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 75.2% | 72.5–77.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.9% | 73.4–83.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 12.0–16.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.4% | 8.5–12.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.1% | 19.6–27.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.1% | 26.2–34.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.7% | 13.5–18.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.6–16.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.6% | 12.0–15.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.1–12.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 25.6% | 22.3–29.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.6% | 6.7–8.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.8% | 10.9–14.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–4.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.7–4.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.0% | 18.1–24.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 7.3–11.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.0–9.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.3–9.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.8–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.5% | 24.1–31.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.8–6.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 12.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 5.8% (2.3–20.8%) n=278 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 4.5% (1.2–12.9%) n=277 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 4.6% (1.1–14.3%) n=278 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 55.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 43.6% (19.2–70.7%) n=278 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.4% (1.6–9.1%) n=277 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–13.7%) n=278 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.7% (86.9–98.8%) n=278 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 32.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 29.3% (18.2–44.9%) n=278 |
| Homeownership rate | 81.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (41.3–93.1%) n=278 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–3.8%) n=278 |
| Foreign-born population | 8.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 9.3% (2.1–22.3%) n=278 |
| Single-parent households | 53.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.1% (36.0–68.7%) n=277 |
| Population 65+ | 24.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.8% (13.4–30.2%) n=278 |
| Median age | 52.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.1 yr (34.7–53.2) n=278 |
| Median household income | $106,875 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $107,247 ($63,371–$163,278) n=270 |
| Median home value | $464,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $365,900 ($239,080–$622,060) n=268 |
| Median gross rent | $1,727 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,450 ($1,128–$2,175) n=247 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 84.1 yr ± 1.42 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 81.2 yr (77.7–83.5) n=266 |
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 1.42 years of 84.1, 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