ZIP code
15901
in Johnstown, PennsylvaniaPopulation 3,397
16.97/ 100
Ranked #31,989 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 0.3%)
Ranked #1,745 of 1,748 Pennsylvania ZIPs (bottom 0.2%)
Ranked #46 of 46 Johnstown, PA ZIPs (bottom 2.2%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
Some domains have limited local data — read this Score as directional
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.
Tooth loss
33.3%
in the top 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.89 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located 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 ›Outpatient-care access
2.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics located 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 ›Physician access
8.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices located 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
3.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Transit access
17 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Walkability
310 intersections/sq mi
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.89 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located 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 ›Households without a vehicle
38.5%
in the top 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
4.0%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Combined exposures in this ZIP
More than one environmental exposure stands out in this ZIP. Each is established independently and shown on its own above; they are grouped here for context — not because one causes the other.
This area ranks among the highest 10% of US ZIP codes for both flood exposure and the share of households without a vehicle.
See the full flooding, evacuation & humid-heat analysis →
The read
With coverage still partial across the sources, ZIP 15901, one of several in Johnstown, Pennsylvania lands in the bottom 0.3% nationally (31,989th) and the bottom 0.2% of Pennsylvania (1,745th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The partial picture points to a handful of readings, with caveats: mental-health providers resides in the top 0.3% nationally, outpatient settles in the top 0.3% nationally, and physicians is in the top 0.4% nationally. Civic sits in the top 0.4% nationally, transit lands in the top 0.5% nationally, and walkability lies in the top 0.7% nationally. Pharmacy stands in the top 1.4% nationally. Set against that, modeled tooth loss rests in the top 1.7% nationally, and households without a vehicle registers in the top 1.6% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise resides in the top 2.1% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, mental-health providers runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. ZIP 15902, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.
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
Healthcare Access
healthier than 92%
6%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 12%
19%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
16%
Preventive CarePartial
healthier than 7%
15%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 25%
6%
Not placed: Chronic Disease Burden and Risk Behavior — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 38% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
No data: Mental Health and Disability — not measured in this ZIP, so it is left out of the score entirely rather than estimated.
“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
15902
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 34.61
Closest healthier
15905
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 55.72
Similar health profile
40212
Kentucky99% similar profile
Score 12.59
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 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 33.3% | 28.3–38.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.2% | 52.5–63.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 47.8% | 43.8–51.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.4% | 64.0–79.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Short sleep duration among adults | 44.7% | 37.9–51.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | PA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 39.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.3% (2.1–21.6%) n=1,759 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.3% (0.0–16.6%) n=1,753 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 12.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.0% (1.5–16.1%) n=1,762 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 14.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (8.9–50.4%) n=1,762 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 11.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.9% (0.0–9.6%) n=1,755 |
| Households without a vehicle | 38.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.6%) n=1,758 |
| Broadband subscription | 78.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.2% (75.7–97.3%) n=1,758 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 33.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.9% (9.9–35.3%) n=1,758 |
| Homeownership rate | 42.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (57.1–94.5%) n=1,758 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.6% (0.0–3.3%) n=1,758 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–10.2%) n=1,763 |
| Single-parent households | 45.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.3% (38.5–72.8%) n=1,744 |
| Population 65+ | 23.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.1% (12.3–31.4%) n=1,763 |
| Median age | 51.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.2 yr (33.9–55.5) n=1,752 |
| Median household income | $27,121 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $71,250 ($50,880–$112,747) n=1,642 |
| Median home value | $20,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $197,200 ($99,000–$382,120) n=1,649 |
| Median gross rent | $510 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $983 ($701–$1,527) n=1,367 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | PA 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