ZIP code
28269
in Charlotte, North CarolinaPopulation 79,586
60.27/ 100
Ranked #4,656 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 14.6%)
Ranked #95 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 12.0%)
Ranked #27 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 24%)
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
798 units
in the top 2.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
40 per million
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›PFAS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFAS — man-made “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down — were 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 ›High cholesterol
30.5%
in the bottom 4.0% 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 ›Hearing disability
4.5%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
4.3%
in the bottom 4.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Mammography
81.5%
in the top 5.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
96.3%
in the top 13.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS87thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 28269, one of several in Charlotte, North Carolina, in overall standing, comes out in the top 14.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (4,656th) and the top 12.0% of North Carolina (95th).
A balanced showing across the data, with a few readings each side: subsidized affordable housing lies in the top 2.2% nationally, lead in tap water registers at the national minimum, and modeled high cholesterol is in the bottom 4.0% nationally. Modeled hearing disability lies in the bottom 3.6% nationally, coronary heart disease registers in the bottom 4.6% nationally, and mammography is in the top 5.2% nationally. Home broadband subscription lies in the top 13.1% nationally. On the other hand, modeled air-toxics cancer risk registers in the top 4.5% nationally, and PFAS in drinking water is at the national maximum. Modeled industrial-pollution burden lies in the top 9.0% nationally.
Set within its surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, for reference, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. PFAS in drinking water is the family of man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 28078, 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 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 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 90%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 67%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 69%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 66%
8%
Disability
healthier than 82%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 59%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 30%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 67%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 91%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 74%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 85%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 45%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 55%
11%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 15%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 82%
8%
Disability
healthier than 77%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 94%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 55%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 41%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 59%
11%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 30.2; chronic-disease standing 90.0 (top 10%) — 60 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,387 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 40.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 78.7 ± 1.0 years.
Ranked #504 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28027
North Carolinashares a border
Score 58.41
Closest healthier
28078
North Carolinashares a border
Score 65.66
Similar health profile
52245
Iowa99% similar profile
Score 63.61
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 | 21.1% | 18.6–23.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.9% | 28.4–35.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.3% | 4.8–5.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.1 |
| Depression among adults | 21.7% | 18.7–24.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.3% | 8.9–11.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.5% | 27.0–33.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.6% | 26.5–36.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 9.5% | 7.6–11.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.0% | 8.7–11.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 73.3% | 69.9–76.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.4% | 76.1–82.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.1% | 86.5–89.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.0% | 59.4–68.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 63.2% | 59.8–66.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.5% | 75.2–86.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.7% | 12.2–17.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.9% | 9.4–12.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 21.1% | 18.0–24.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.7% | 36.0–45.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 16.1% | 14.2–18.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.0% | 14.2–17.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.5% | 9.2–11.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.4% | 11.8–14.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.9% | 23.6–30.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.5% | 4.0–5.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.3–7.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.6–12.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.1–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.7% | 22.2–29.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.6% | 14.5–18.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.8% | 11.0–14.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.8% | 12.9–16.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 8.0–10.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.7% | 29.4–38.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 45.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 35.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 60.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 14.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 40.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 9.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 35.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $81,517 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $341,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,710 | $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 | 78.7 yr ± 0.53 | 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 0.53 years of 78.7, 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