ZIP code
15942
in Mineral Point, PennsylvaniaPopulation 2,185
52.00/ 100
Ranked #13,451 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 42%)
Ranked #671 of 1,748 Pennsylvania ZIPs (top 38%)
Ranked #14 of 46 Johnstown, PA ZIPs (top 30%)
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.
Fatal road crashes
0 per 100,000 residents per year
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Elder-services access
0.54 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›PFAS in drinking water
63.6%
in the top 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Housing-cost burden
7.3%
in the bottom 6.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
5.4%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
72.3%
in the top 8.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.3%
in the bottom 8.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS8thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
20 per million
in the bottom 25% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS25thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›The read
Working from the partial data available, Mineral Point, Pennsylvania (ZIP 15942) lands in the top 42% healthiest ZIPs nationally (13,451st) and the top 38% of Pennsylvania (671st), based on limited data; treat as directional.
What the available data indicates is laid out plainly: fatal road crashes rests at the national minimum, elder services settles in the top 2.2% nationally, and housing-cost burden lands in the bottom 6.7% nationally. Modeled tree cover rests in the top 8.0% nationally, and arsenic settles in the bottom 8.2% nationally. Modeled extreme heat lands at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Modeled disaster risk rests in the bottom 14.9% nationally. Set against that, modeled pfas settles in the top 6.6% nationally, and energy burden lands in the top 5.8% nationally. Fiber broadband rests at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs.
Set within its surrounding area, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, for reference, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 15904, 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
Preventive CarePartial
healthier than 85%
15%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 91%
6%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 49%
6%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 14%
19%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
16%
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
15904
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 54.68
Closest healthier
15931
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 55.13
Similar health profile
15458
Pennsylvania99% similar profile
Score 52.10
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 | 12.2% | 9.7–14.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.7% | 65.8–75.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 64.9% | 61.1–68.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.0% | 70.7–84.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.8% | 31.3–44.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | PA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.3% (2.1–21.6%) n=1,759 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 2.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.3% (0.0–16.6%) n=1,753 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.0% (1.5–16.1%) n=1,762 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 36.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (8.9–50.4%) n=1,762 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.9% (0.0–9.6%) n=1,755 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.6%) n=1,758 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.2% (75.7–97.3%) n=1,758 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 7.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.9% (9.9–35.3%) n=1,758 |
| Homeownership rate | 90.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (57.1–94.5%) n=1,758 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.6% (0.0–3.3%) n=1,758 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–10.2%) n=1,763 |
| Single-parent households | 51.9% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.3% (38.5–72.8%) n=1,744 |
| Population 65+ | 18.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.1% (12.3–31.4%) n=1,763 |
| Median age | 38.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.2 yr (33.9–55.5) n=1,752 |
| Median household income | $84,875 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $71,250 ($50,880–$112,747) n=1,642 |
| Median home value | $185,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $197,200 ($99,000–$382,120) n=1,649 |
| Median gross rent | $1,120 | $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 at birth | 77.9 yr ± 0.76 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 79.2 yr (76.0–82.0) n=1,730 |
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 0.76 years of 77.9, 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