ZIP code
28305
in Fayetteville, North CarolinaPopulation 5,710
57.42/ 100
Ranked #6,863 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 21%)
Ranked #145 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 18%)
Ranked #1 of 18 Fayetteville, NC ZIPs (top 5.6%)
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.
Dental provider access
2.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental 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 ›Mental-health provider access
0.51 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.9% 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
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.3% 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 ›Transit access
6.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Recreation access
1.4 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›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 ›Physician access
2.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Pharmacy access
0.51 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
0.68 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›Elder-services access
0.17 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS91stDefinition & 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 ›The read
Overall, ZIP 28305, one of several in Fayetteville, North Carolina places in the top 21% healthiest ZIPs nationally (6,863rd) and the top 18% of North Carolina (145th).
The data opens on a genuinely even set of readings: dental providers resides in the top 0.6% nationally, and mental-health providers is in the top 0.9% nationally. Outpatient lands in the top 1.3% nationally, and transit stands in the top 2.9% nationally. Recreation registers in the top 4.3% nationally, lead in tap water settles at the national minimum, and physicians sits in the top 4.6% nationally. Pharmacy lies in the top 4.8% nationally, civic rests in the top 7.9% nationally, and elder services resides in the top 8.6% nationally.
Beside the areas that surround it, mental-health providers runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For readers new to these terms, lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 28387, about 23 miles away.
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 Fayetteville, NC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 90%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 74%
11%
Disability
healthier than 62%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 76%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 54%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 47%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 55%
8%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 36%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 70%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 88%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 65%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
Disability
healthier than 77%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 73%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 29%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 39%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.00%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the top 0.00%
11%
Mental Health
in the top 0.00%
8%
Disability
healthier than 76%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 41%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 41%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 47%
5%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28301
North Carolinashares a border
Score 38.41
Closest healthier
28387
North Carolinaabout 23 mi away
Score 61.18
Similar health profile
29726
South Carolina97% similar profile
Score 53.09
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 | 30.2% | 27.1–33.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.8% | 36.1–43.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.9% | 9.6–12.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.6% | 5.9–7.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.7 |
| Depression among adults | 24.4% | 21.1–27.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.1% | 10.5–13.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.1% | 33.2–41.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.4% | 30.8–42.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 11.6% | 9.4–14.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.3% | 7.0–9.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.0% | 76.3–81.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.1% | 79.1–84.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.8% | 88.3–91.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.1% | 67.6–76.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 68.5% | 65.2–71.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.7% | 73.0–85.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.9% | 12.5–17.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 12.2% | 10.4–14.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 21.6% | 18.3–25.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.9% | 31.6–42.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.5% | 15.2–20.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.5–17.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.4% | 10.8–14.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.2% | 11.6–14.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.5% | 28.7–36.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.3% | 6.5–8.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.7% | 6.8–8.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.7% | 12.8–16.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.6% | 18.5–25.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.9% | 11.1–14.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.5% | 8.9–12.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.6% | 9.1–12.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.3% | 6.4–8.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.3% | 28.0–37.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 6.4–8.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 15.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 51.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 8.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 57.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 48.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 24.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 43.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $78,148 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $260,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,071 | $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 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