ZIP code
06870
in Old Greenwich, ConnecticutPopulation 7,864
74.12/ 100
Ranked #81 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 0.3%)
Ranked #4 of 277 Connecticut ZIPs (top 1.5%)
Ranked #4 of 46 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT ZIPs (top 8.7%)
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
$250,001
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full 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 ›Food insecurity
5.6%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Obesity
21.5%
in the bottom 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
3.8%
in the bottom 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
7.2%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
5.5%
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
9.1%
in the bottom 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.7%
in the bottom 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
6.6%
in the bottom 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›The read
Old Greenwich, Connecticut (ZIP 06870), by its composite score, sits in the top 0.3% healthiest ZIPs nationally (81st) and the top 1.5% of Connecticut (4th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures land in both directions, and neither dominates: household income is at the national maximum, and modeled expected annual loss lands at the national minimum. Modeled food insecurity stands in the bottom 0.9% nationally, and obesity registers in the bottom 1.7% nationally. Modeled transportation settles in the bottom 1.0% nationally, cognitive disability sits in the bottom 0.2% nationally, and housing insecurity lies in the bottom 1.4% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health rests in the bottom 0.3% nationally, utility shutoff resides in the bottom 2.3% nationally, and mobility disability is in the bottom 1.6% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 06878, 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 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT metro area.
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 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 97%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 98%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.5%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 80%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 39%
14%
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 97%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 86%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 68%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
in the top 0.8%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.8%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 66%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 58%
14%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 90%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 74%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 63%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 72%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 89%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 96%
8%
Disability
healthier than 96%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 44%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
“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
06807
Connecticutshares a border
Score 71.83
Closest healthier
06878
Connecticutshares a border
Score 75.00
Similar health profile
06877
Connecticut100% similar profile
Score 72.52
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 | 20.9% | 18.9–23.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 26.5% | 24.0–29.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.4% | 8.6–10.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.3% | 8.3–10.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.4% | 3.9–4.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.4% | 2.9–4.1 |
| Depression among adults | 17.0% | 14.9–19.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 7.0% | 6.1–7.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.8% | 35.8–41.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 21.5% | 18.2–25.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.3% | 2.0–2.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 4.3% | 3.5–5.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.6% | 3.7–5.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.3% | 75.2–80.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.1% | 77.4–82.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 93.1% | 92.0–94.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.8% | 69.6–76.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 82.2% | 80.4–84.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.3% | 75.8–84.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.9% | 14.7–19.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 5.8% | 4.6–7.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 15.9% | 13.6–18.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.8% | 26.6–33.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 9.1% | 7.9–10.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 11.5% | 10.2–13.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 8.8% | 7.7–9.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.2–8.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 16.1% | 14.0–18.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 6.6% | 5.7–7.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.9% | 1.7–2.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.2–2.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.9% | 17.4–22.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 4.5–6.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 3.3% | 2.5–4.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.5–6.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 3.8% | 3.2–4.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.2% | 26.1–32.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.7% | 3.1–4.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 5.8% (2.3–20.8%) n=278 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 4.5% (1.2–12.9%) n=277 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 4.6% (1.1–14.3%) n=278 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 85.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 43.6% (19.2–70.7%) n=278 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.4% (1.6–9.1%) n=277 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–13.7%) n=278 |
| Broadband subscription | 97.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.7% (86.9–98.8%) n=278 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 38.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 29.3% (18.2–44.9%) n=278 |
| Homeownership rate | 83.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (41.3–93.1%) n=278 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–3.8%) n=278 |
| Foreign-born population | 20.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 9.3% (2.1–22.3%) n=278 |
| Single-parent households | 37.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.1% (36.0–68.7%) n=277 |
| Population 65+ | 14.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.8% (13.4–30.2%) n=278 |
| Median age | 40.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.1 yr (34.7–53.2) n=278 |
| Median household income | $250,001 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $107,247 ($63,371–$163,278) n=270 |
| Median home value | $1,788,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $365,900 ($239,080–$622,060) n=268 |
| Median gross rent | $3,501 | $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 | 85.2 yr ± 1.25 | 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 1.25 years of 85.2, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured