ZIP code
36432
in Castleberry, AlabamaPopulation 1,940
37.62/ 100
Ranked #28,229 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 12.0%)
Ranked #474 of 619 Alabama ZIPs (bottom 23%)
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.
High blood pressure
52.7%
in the top 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
20.6%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
0.98%
in the bottom 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST18thUS2ndDefinition & 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 ›Fatal road crashes
61.9 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & 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
6.1%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
24.6%
in the top 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
46%
in the top 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
66%
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST8thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
6.9%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.8%
in the top 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›The read
Castleberry, Alabama (ZIP 36432), by its composite score, sits in the bottom 12.0% nationally (28,229th) and the bottom 23% of Alabama (474th).
The measures that matter most for this area lead the way: modeled high blood pressure registers in the top 1.6% nationally, and diabetes settles in the top 3.0% nationally. Fatal road crashes sits in the top 2.1% nationally, and modeled stroke lies in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled mobility disability rests in the top 4.0% nationally, modeled high cholesterol resides in the top 2.8% nationally, and home broadband subscription is in the bottom 4.4% nationally. Modeled self-care disability lands in the top 6.3% nationally, and coronary heart disease stands in the top 5.1% nationally. On the better side, modeled arsenic registers in the bottom 1.8% nationally.
For anyone unfamiliar, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 36460, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 85%
14%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 49%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 41%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 4%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 16%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 18%
11%
Disability
healthier than 6%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 30%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 79%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 62%
8%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 13%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 31%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Disability
healthier than 16%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 30%
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
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 85.6; chronic-disease standing 4.2 (bottom 10%) — 81 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #431 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
36401
Alabamashares a border
Score 33.93
Closest healthier
36460
Alabamashares a border
Score 38.06
Similar health profile
65627
Missouri99% similar profile
Score 41.57
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 | 38.5% | 35.0–42.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 52.7% | 48.7–56.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.6% | 8.8–10.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–11.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.8% | 9.8–11.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.2% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Depression among adults | 23.0% | 20.0–26.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 20.6% | 18.4–23.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 46.0% | 41.9–50.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 43.9% | 36.0–52.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.1% | 5.6–6.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.6% | 15.8–21.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.1% | 9.4–13.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.7% | 80.5–84.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.3% | 79.4–85.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.1% | 84.4–87.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.5% | 63.3–71.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 51.9% | 48.3–55.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.8% | 66.1–79.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 11.7% | 9.7–14.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 20.2% | 17.5–23.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 36.2% | 31.3–41.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.3% | 34.5–46.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 30.8% | 27.5–34.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.9% | 16.0–20.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.2% | 16.2–20.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.4% | 16.4–20.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 44.5% | 39.9–49.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.2% | 10.1–12.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.8% | 11.5–14.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 24.6% | 21.9–27.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.2–7.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.6% | 7.8–9.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 27.0% | 23.5–30.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 25.1% | 22.0–28.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 21.0% | 18.3–23.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.4% | 14.4–18.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.4% | 30.8–40.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 12.3% | 10.9–13.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 20.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.4% (5.1–31.1%) n=623 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.7% (5.2–25.2%) n=625 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 18.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 13.2% (3.6–23.0%) n=626 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 7.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 16.9% (6.9–38.8%) n=626 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–11.0%) n=622 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.0% (0.0–12.1%) n=622 |
| Broadband subscription | 66.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 84.9% (68.8–94.9%) n=622 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 24.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.3% (10.1–35.0%) n=622 |
| Homeownership rate | 80.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.3% (54.7–92.5%) n=622 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.3% (0.0–4.2%) n=622 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.3% (0.0–6.2%) n=628 |
| Single-parent households | 56.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (35.0–68.6%) n=617 |
| Population 65+ | 37.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.9–29.2%) n=628 |
| Median age | 59.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.3 yr (33.4–52.9) n=621 |
| Median household income | $40,962 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,896 ($37,738–$88,230) n=587 |
| Median home value | $64,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $160,950 ($87,300–$292,680) n=568 |
| Median gross rent | $717 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $856 ($625–$1,266) n=503 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL 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