ZIP code
29065
in Jenkinsville, South CarolinaPopulation 605
42.92/ 100
Ranked #24,451 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 24%)
Ranked #288 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 31%)
Ranked #40 of 47 Columbia, SC ZIPs (bottom 14.9%)
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
20.6%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Obesity
47.1%
in the top 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Stroke
5.9%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
49.5%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.1%
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST24thUS5thDefinition & 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 ›Self-care disability
6.8%
in the top 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST79thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
11.6%
in the bottom 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
29.6%
in the top 6.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
15.2%
in the top 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
21.7%
in the top 6.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Jenkinsville, South Carolina (ZIP 29065) lands in the bottom 24% nationally (24,451st) and the bottom 31% of South Carolina (288th).
A number of measures pull each way for this area: modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 4.7% nationally, and binge drinking sits in the bottom 4.9% nationally. Set against that, modeled diabetes is in the top 3.0% nationally, and obesity settles in the top 2.0% nationally. Modeled stroke resides in the top 4.7% nationally, high blood pressure registers in the top 3.9% nationally, and self-care disability rests in the top 6.8% nationally. Modeled food insecurity stands in the top 6.4% nationally, utility shutoff lies in the top 6.8% nationally, and housing insecurity lands in the top 6.9% nationally.
A note on the terms: arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 29015, just across the boundary, ranks better overall.
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 Columbia, SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 93%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 74%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 68%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 11%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 8%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Disability
healthier than 15%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 22%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 18%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 89%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 73%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 40%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 17%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 16%
16%
Disability
healthier than 25%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 3%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
in the top 0.00%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 70%
8%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 59%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 24%
11%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 7%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
29015
South Carolinashares a border
Score 43.22
Closest healthier
29075
South Carolinashares a border
Score 59.02
Similar health profile
36860
Alabama99% similar profile
Score 38.63
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 | 32.1% | 28.6–35.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 49.5% | 45.2–53.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.3% | 6.6–8.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.3% | 7.3–9.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.4% | 8.1–10.6 |
| Depression among adults | 19.3% | 16.3–22.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 20.6% | 18.1–23.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.0% | 36.6–45.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 47.1% | 39.1–55.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 22.4% | 18.7–26.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.2% | 10.8–15.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 83.4% | 81.2–85.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.1% | 81.3–86.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.8% | 86.0–89.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.0% | 63.9–73.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 54.7% | 51.1–58.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.0% | 72.2–85.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 11.6% | 9.5–14.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 16.8% | 14.2–19.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.7% | 28.4–39.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.8% | 34.2–48.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 27.6% | 23.8–31.3 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.5% | 15.4–19.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.4% | 14.3–18.6 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.4% | 14.3–18.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.3% | 32.5–42.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.1–7.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.3–13.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 22.1% | 19.2–25.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.6% | 7.6–9.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 30.4% | 26.3–34.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 29.6% | 25.5–34.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 20.4% | 17.2–23.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 21.7% | 18.7–24.9 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 13.4% | 11.6–15.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.3% | 30.1–40.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 15.2% | 13.2–17.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 19.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 8.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 13.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 97.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 12.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 87.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 27.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 10.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 40.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $49,225 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $98,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 78.6 yr ± 1.69 | 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 1.69 years of 78.6, 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