ZIP code
06706
in Waterbury, ConnecticutPopulation 15,551
41.38/ 100
Ranked #25,761 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 20%)
Ranked #267 of 277 Connecticut ZIPs (bottom 3.7%)
Ranked #37 of 41 New Haven-Milford, CT ZIPs (bottom 9.8%)
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 ›Transit access
7.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Uninsured (under 65)
20%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.34 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
23%
in the top 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
24.7%
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
16.7%
in the top 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
40.8%
in the bottom 5.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST10thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
15.5%
in the top 5.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
9.1%
in the top 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, ZIP 06706, one of several in Waterbury, Connecticut lands in the bottom 20% nationally (25,761st) and the bottom 3.7% of Connecticut (267th).
Where this area bears down hardest, the measures speak first: modeled uninsured resides in the top 4.5% nationally, and households without a vehicle lands in the top 3.7% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity registers in the top 4.3% nationally, and utility shutoff sits in the top 4.9% nationally. Homeownership rests in the bottom 5.5% nationally, modeled transportation is in the top 5.7% nationally, and modeled vision disability stands in the top 7.2% nationally. On the encouraging side, modeled expected annual loss settles at the national minimum, transit lies in the top 2.1% nationally, and grocery resides in the top 3.1% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 06705, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the New Haven-Milford, CT metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 78%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 80%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 44%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 41%
8%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 3%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 19%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 13%
11%
Disability
healthier than 20%
7%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 74%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 66%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 4%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 16%
8%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 61%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 8%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 8%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 13%
8%
Disability
healthier than 8%
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
06702
Connecticutshares a border
Score 25.81
Closest healthier
06705
Connecticutshares a border
Score 45.23
Similar health profile
06519
Connecticut98% similar profile
Score 37.44
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 | 25.3% | 23.3–27.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.9% | 33.3–38.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.2% | 5.7–6.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.6% | 10.5–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.2% | 6.6–8.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.9% | 7.1–8.8 |
| Depression among adults | 21.1% | 18.8–23.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.2% | 12.8–15.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.6% | 35.9–41.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 40.2% | 35.6–44.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.2% | 3.9–4.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 21.0% | 18.1–24.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 20.0% | 17.5–22.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 73.6% | 71.1–76.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.0% | 75.4–80.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.3% | 83.6–86.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.7% | 61.1–68.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 56.1% | 53.1–59.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.0% | 69.8–80.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.3% | 11.6–15.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 16.5% | 14.6–18.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 38.6% | 35.0–42.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 42.2% | 38.2–46.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.1% | 23.8–28.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.2% | 17.5–21.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.5–18.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.9% | 16.2–19.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.7% | 31.7–38.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.2–7.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.8% | 9.8–11.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.1% | 15.4–18.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.6–6.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.4–9.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 30.9% | 27.9–34.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 30.0% | 27.2–32.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 26.1% | 23.4–28.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 24.7% | 22.3–27.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 15.5% | 14.0–17.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 38.0% | 34.6–41.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 16.7% | 14.9–18.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 25.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 5.8% (2.3–20.8%) n=278 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 4.5% (1.2–12.9%) n=277 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 24.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 4.6% (1.1–14.3%) n=278 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 16.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 43.6% (19.2–70.7%) n=278 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 10.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.4% (1.6–9.1%) n=277 |
| Households without a vehicle | 23.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–13.7%) n=278 |
| Broadband subscription | 88.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.7% (86.9–98.8%) n=278 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 42.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 29.3% (18.2–44.9%) n=278 |
| Homeownership rate | 40.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (41.3–93.1%) n=278 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 6.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–3.8%) n=278 |
| Foreign-born population | 22.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 9.3% (2.1–22.3%) n=278 |
| Single-parent households | 29.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.1% (36.0–68.7%) n=277 |
| Population 65+ | 15.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.8% (13.4–30.2%) n=278 |
| Median age | 36.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.1 yr (34.7–53.2) n=278 |
| Median household income | $52,242 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $107,247 ($63,371–$163,278) n=270 |
| Median home value | $210,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $365,900 ($239,080–$622,060) n=268 |
| Median gross rent | $1,269 | $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 unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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