ZIP code
29130
in Ridgeway, South CarolinaPopulation 6,252
49.39/ 100
Ranked #17,095 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 47%)
Ranked #164 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (top 39%)
Ranked #25 of 47 Columbia, SC ZIPs (bottom 47%)
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
18.7%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST72ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
47.7%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST80thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
44.8%
in the top 4.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.3%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST34thUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Home broadband subscription
73.3%
in the bottom 8.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST13thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
36.8 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 8.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST77thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Stroke
5.4%
in the top 8.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST69thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
65.7%
in the top 11.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Ridgeway, South Carolina (ZIP 29130) places in the bottom 47% nationally (17,095th) and the top 39% of South Carolina (164th).
The data opens on a genuinely even set of readings: modeled arsenic sits in the bottom 7.4% nationally, and tree cover lies in the top 11.5% nationally. Modeled binge drinking rests in the bottom 11.4% nationally. Distance to a nursing home resides at the national minimum, shared with about 27% of ZIPs. On the other side, modeled diabetes is in the top 6.3% nationally, high blood pressure lands in the top 6.5% nationally, and high cholesterol stands in the top 4.8% nationally. Home broadband subscription registers in the bottom 8.4% nationally, fatal road crashes settles in the top 8.5% nationally, and modeled stroke sits in the top 8.9% nationally.
For readers new to these terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 29016, 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 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 74%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 87%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 64%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 45%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 14%
21%
Disability
healthier than 27%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 76%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 59%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 57%
14%
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 56%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 23%
21%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 70%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 80%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 72%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 67%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 54%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 13%
21%
Disability
healthier than 35%
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 74.1; chronic-disease standing 13.5 — 61 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,681 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
29016
South Carolinashares a border
Score 59.80
Closest healthier
29020
South Carolinashares a border
Score 49.69
Similar health profile
29835
South Carolina99% similar profile
Score 48.93
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 | 35.0% | 32.2–38.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 47.7% | 44.2–51.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.2% | 9.5–11.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.1% | 9.1–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.0% | 8.2–9.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.6–10.7 |
| Depression among adults | 20.6% | 18.1–23.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 18.7% | 16.9–20.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 44.8% | 41.1–48.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.2% | 35.0–47.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.4% | 5.0–5.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.0% | 11.9–16.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.9% | 9.3–12.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.9% | 83.0–86.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.1% | 81.8–86.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.0% | 88.9–91.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.9% | 67.1–74.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.2% | 58.3–64.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.4% | 71.5–82.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.7% | 10.8–14.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.8% | 13.1–17.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.2% | 25.6–33.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.2% | 31.2–42.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.5% | 21.1–26.3 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.4% | 14.0–17.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.1% | 14.6–17.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.1% | 12.7–15.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.8% | 31.3–38.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.6–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.8–10.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.2% | 18.2–22.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.8% | 6.2–7.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.1% | 22.0–28.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 19.1% | 16.6–21.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 11.8% | 10.2–13.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.9% | 12.2–15.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.8–9.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.2% | 27.1–35.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.4% | 8.3–10.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 11.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 73.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 19.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 70.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 40.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 59.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $63,963 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $265,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $918 | $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 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