ZIP code
29129
in Ridge Spring, South CarolinaPopulation 4,605
43.94/ 100
Ranked #23,470 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 27%)
Ranked #265 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 36%)
Ranked #29 of 43 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC ZIPs (bottom 33%)
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.
Grocery access
0.34 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Uninsured (under 65)
18%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
27.6%
in the top 8.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
17.8%
in the top 8.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST66thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
26%
in the top 9.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST73rdUS90thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
Ridge Spring, South Carolina (ZIP 29129), overall, ranks in the bottom 27% nationally (23,470th) and the bottom 36% of South Carolina (265th).
Reading the numbers as a whole, the picture lands somewhere in between: grocery sits in the top 3.1% nationally, and modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 10.2% nationally. On the other side, modeled uninsured lies in the top 6.5% nationally, poverty stands in the top 8.5% nationally, and modeled diabetes rests in the top 8.8% nationally. Modeled food insecurity registers in the top 9.9% nationally, and unemployment resides in the top 10.2% nationally. Modeled vision disability settles in the top 10.1% nationally, and stroke is in the top 10.1% nationally. Modeled self-care disability sits in the top 10.5% nationally.
Defined simply, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. ZIP 29006, just across the boundary, comes out healthier 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 Augusta-Richmond County, GA-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 83%
14%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 53%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 23%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 21%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 36%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 19%
11%
Disability
healthier than 16%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 70%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 42%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 37%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 21%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 20%
11%
Disability
healthier than 30%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 79%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 83%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 52%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 40%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 38%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 33%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 24%
11%
Disability
healthier than 24%
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
One of our published findings lists 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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 82.8; chronic-disease standing 22.7 — 60 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,719 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
29006
South Carolinashares a border
Score 47.35
Closest healthier
29801
South Carolinashares a border
Score 45.88
Similar health profile
31087
Georgia98% similar profile
Score 33.64
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 | 30.7% | 28.7–32.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 43.0% | 40.6–45.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.9% | 7.4–8.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.2% | 9.4–11.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.8–9.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.8–10.5 |
| Depression among adults | 21.9% | 20.0–24.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.8% | 16.5–19.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.0% | 36.6–41.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.8% | 37.8–45.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.3% | 4.9–5.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.0% | 17.7–22.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 18.0% | 15.9–20.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.1% | 80.4–83.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.8% | 78.7–82.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.2% | 83.7–86.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.7% | 61.7–67.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 55.5% | 53.1–57.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.7% | 72.5–80.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.5% | 12.9–16.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.3% | 15.6–19.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.7% | 30.8–36.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.1% | 36.8–43.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 27.4% | 25.4–29.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.9–18.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.8% | 15.5–18.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.0% | 15.6–18.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.4% | 34.7–40.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.4–8.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.4% | 10.5–12.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.4% | 18.8–22.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.8–6.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.4% | 7.8–9.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.9% | 24.4–29.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 26.0% | 23.4–28.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.6% | 15.6–19.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.6% | 16.8–20.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 11.0–13.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.4% | 30.6–36.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 12.6% | 11.3–13.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 27.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 31.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 20.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 27.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 19.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 85.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 55.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 23.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 43.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $61,103 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $147,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $775 | $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 | 77.1 yr ± 1.16 | 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 1.16 years of 77.1, 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