ZIP code
27701
in Durham, North CarolinaPopulation 24,793
53.01/ 100
Ranked #12,080 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 38%)
Ranked #269 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 34%)
Ranked #19 of 27 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC ZIPs (bottom 30%)
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.
Subsidized affordable housing
682 units
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.24 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Homeownership rate
30.2%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST2ndUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Lead in tap water
0 ppb
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
US1stDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
30.3%
in the bottom 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Civic-institution access
0.91 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Walkability
150 intersections/sq mi
in the top 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›PFOA in drinking water
92.3%
in the top 7.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOA, one of the man-made “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
14.4%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›PFOS in drinking water
92.3%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›The read
Judged by its overall standing, ZIP 27701, one of several in Durham, North Carolina sits in the top 38% healthiest ZIPs nationally (12,080th) and the top 34% of North Carolina (269th).
A healthy showing across the board, and a few measures carry it: subsidized affordable housing lies in the top 2.9% nationally, mental-health providers registers in the top 3.1% nationally, and lead in tap water is at the national minimum. Modeled high cholesterol lies in the bottom 3.7% nationally, civic registers in the top 4.9% nationally, and walkability is in the top 5.0% nationally. On the other hand, homeownership lies in the bottom 3.2% nationally, and PFOA in drinking water registers in the top 7.7% nationally. Households without a vehicle is in the top 7.9% nationally, and PFOS in drinking water lies in the top 7.9% nationally.
Placed beside its immediate neighbors, walkability runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put plainly, lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. PFOA in drinking water is one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. PFOS in drinking water is a common one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 27703, 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 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 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 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 71%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 90%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 53%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 49%
11%
Disability
healthier than 50%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 23%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 31%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 87%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 71%
16%
Disability
healthier than 68%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 74%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 37%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 7%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 28%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 39%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 69%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 65%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 85%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 46%
16%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 4%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 8%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 8%
8%
Disability
healthier than 35%
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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
2 of our published findings list this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 75.3 ± 1.6 years. A median household income of $69,740 predicts 78.7 years — 3.3 years below.
Ranked #4,481 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Below its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 75.3 ± 1.6 years. The 40 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 80.0 years — 4.6 years below them.
Ranked #3,278 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
27703
North Carolinashares a border
Score 57.65
Closest healthier
27705
North Carolinashares a border
Score 61.43
Similar health profile
92595
California95% similar profile
Score 53.40
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 | 20.1% | 17.5–22.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.5% | 28.9–36.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.1% | 5.4–6.8 |
| Depression among adults | 24.9% | 21.3–28.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.5% | 10.0–13.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.3% | 26.4–34.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.9% | 33.1–46.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.3% | 3.0–3.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 19.6% | 16.2–23.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.6% | 11.7–15.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 71.6% | 68.5–74.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.8% | 73.9–81.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.8% | 81.6–85.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.1% | 55.6–66.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 57.7% | 54.0–61.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.1% | 70.5–84.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.5% | 13.4–19.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.5% | 12.5–16.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.7% | 21.8–29.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.5% | 30.9–42.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.1% | 18.5–23.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.6–19.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.2% | 10.7–13.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.5% | 14.6–18.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.5% | 27.5–35.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.5–5.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.1–10.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.2% | 11.5–15.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.6% | 4.2–5.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.9–7.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.9% | 20.7–27.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 22.1% | 19.6–24.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 20.0% | 17.7–22.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.4% | 15.3–19.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.0% | 10.7–13.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.9% | 29.3–38.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.7–13.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 53.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 14.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 90.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 32.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 30.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 16.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 41.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 10.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 34.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $69,740 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $508,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,351 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $957 ($715–$1,575) n=687 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.3 yr ± 0.83 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.3 yr (74.6–80.8) n=747 |
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 0.83 years of 75.3, 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