ZIP code
29003
in Bamberg, South CarolinaPopulation 5,610
39.48/ 100
Ranked #27,095 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 16%)
Ranked #350 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 16%)
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.
Diabetes
20.3%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
17.8%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Stroke
6.1%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
7.2%
in the top 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
0.85 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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
0.34 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
48.3%
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
23%
in the top 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
9.0%
in the top 7.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
15.3%
in the top 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, Bamberg, South Carolina (ZIP 29003) lands in the bottom 16% nationally (27,095th) and the bottom 16% of South Carolina (350th).
Reading the numbers as a whole, the picture lands somewhere in between: childcare lies in the top 3.3% nationally, and elder services stands in the top 3.9% nationally. On the other side, modeled diabetes rests in the top 3.4% nationally, unemployment registers in the top 2.6% nationally, and modeled stroke resides in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled self-care disability settles in the top 5.1% nationally, and high blood pressure is in the top 5.5% nationally. Modeled mobility disability sits in the top 6.8% nationally, and vision disability lands in the top 7.6% nationally. Households without a vehicle lies in the top 7.1% nationally.
On the overall standing, ZIP 29038, just across the boundary, ranks healthier. Modeled self-care disability lies in the top 5.1% nationally.
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
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 80%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 69%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 51%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 54%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 5%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 25%
11%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 65%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 60%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 44%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 12%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 10%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Disability
healthier than 13%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
“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 73.6 ± 1.3 years. A median household income of $52,624 predicts 77.5 years — 4.0 years below.
Ranked #5,044 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 79.7; chronic-disease standing 8.4 (bottom 10%) — 71 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #999 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
29038
South Carolinashares a border
Score 43.37
Closest healthier
29042
South Carolinashares a border
Score 42.15
Similar health profile
36083
Alabama99% similar profile
Score 41.13
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 | 34.6% | 31.2–38.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 48.3% | 44.2–52.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.3% | 7.5–9.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 9.9–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.1% | 8.2–10.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–11.9 |
| Depression among adults | 20.8% | 17.8–24.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 20.3% | 18.0–22.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.8% | 36.7–45.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 43.1% | 35.4–50.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.1% | 5.6–6.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 23.5% | 19.7–27.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.4% | 12.1–16.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 83.6% | 81.4–85.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 83.3% | 80.5–85.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.9% | 85.2–88.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.2% | 60.0–69.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 50.9% | 47.0–54.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.0% | 68.3–82.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.2% | 10.0–14.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.7% | 15.4–20.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.5% | 28.8–38.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 41.3% | 34.3–48.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 28.5% | 25.3–31.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.0% | 16.0–20.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.6% | 15.7–19.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.6% | 15.7–19.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.4% | 35.9–45.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.1–8.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.6% | 11.3–14.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 23.0% | 20.4–25.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.5–7.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.0% | 8.1–9.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 29.3% | 25.2–33.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 28.6% | 25.1–32.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 20.2% | 17.5–22.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.3% | 17.8–22.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 13.3% | 11.7–14.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.6% | 30.3–41.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 14.4% | 12.6–16.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 28.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 19.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 19.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 17.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 17.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 15.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 75.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 54.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 26.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 50.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $52,624 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $108,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $851 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $950 ($678–$1,545) n=343 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 73.6 yr ± 0.67 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 76.3 yr (73.2–79.9) n=389 |
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 0.67 years of 73.6, 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