ZIP code
38833
in Burnsville, MississippiPopulation 2,615
41.83/ 100
Ranked #25,364 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 21%)
Ranked #184 of 406 Mississippi ZIPs (top 45%)
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.
Fiber broadband
99.7%
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
56.2%
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST6thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.2%
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST21stUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Pharmacy access
0.43 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located 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 ›Loud transportation noise
2.0%
in the top 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
10.5%
in the top 13.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS87thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
7.2%
in the top 14.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS86thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
105.1 days/year
in the top 20% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS80thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, Burnsville, Mississippi (ZIP 38833) comes out in the bottom 21% nationally (25,364th) and the top 45% of Mississippi (184th).
The profile opens balanced, with readings on either hand: fiber broadband stands in the top 2.9% nationally, modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 6.6% nationally, and pharmacy is in the top 7.2% nationally. Childcare resides in the top 14.7% nationally. By contrast, modeled colon screening rests in the bottom 6.3% nationally, and loud transportation noise lies in the top 7.4% nationally. Home broadband subscription sits in the bottom 13.2% nationally, and modeled high blood pressure settles in the top 12.7% nationally. Modeled hearing disability registers in the top 13.5% nationally, and transportation noise stands in the top 14.2% nationally.
In plain terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 38829, 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 70%
14%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 47%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 19%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 13%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 23%
11%
Disability
healthier than 15%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 36%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 38%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 95%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 57%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 52%
11%
Disability
healthier than 56%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 35%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 17%
8%
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 69.8; chronic-disease standing 19.2 — 51 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #2,443 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
38829
Mississippishares a border
Score 46.73
Closest healthier
38852
Mississippishares a border
Score 43.11
Similar health profile
38629
Mississippi99% similar profile
Score 39.65
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% | 31.5–37.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.9% | 41.1–48.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.7% | 8.9–10.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.0% | 8.1–9.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
| Depression among adults | 22.3% | 19.3–25.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.1% | 13.3–16.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.6% | 38.7–46.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.7% | 32.9–46.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.5% | 15.6–21.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.3% | 9.4–13.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.0% | 78.7–83.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.2% | 77.1–83.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.8% | 83.9–87.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 56.2% | 51.5–60.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 9.3% | 8.0–10.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 71.1% | 63.5–77.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.3% | 11.9–16.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 20.0% | 17.6–22.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 35.5% | 31.1–40.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.0% | 29.3–40.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 25.4% | 22.6–28.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.9–19.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.0% | 15.3–18.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.7% | 16.8–20.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.5% | 36.4–44.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.4–11.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.9% | 9.8–12.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.5% | 18.2–22.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.8–6.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.2–7.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.6% | 22.3–29.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.2% | 15.5–21.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.5% | 8.7–12.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.4% | 10.6–14.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 8.5–11.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.5% | 29.2–38.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.2–9.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 13.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 19.9% (8.3–37.0%) n=406 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 12.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 16.8% (8.1–29.3%) n=410 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 16.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 14.4% (5.9–25.0%) n=411 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 13.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.0% (7.1–33.6%) n=411 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.2%) n=411 |
| Households without a vehicle | 9.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.5% (0.0–13.9%) n=405 |
| Broadband subscription | 77.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (62.7–93.0%) n=405 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 20.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.7% (9.7–36.0%) n=405 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.2% (49.8–91.7%) n=405 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–5.0%) n=405 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.6% (0.0–4.4%) n=412 |
| Single-parent households | 51.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 46.9% (29.2–61.4%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 19.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.8% (11.7–26.2%) n=412 |
| Median age | 32.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 39.5 yr (30.5–49.6) n=411 |
| Median household income | $52,917 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $50,353 ($32,100–$72,379) n=377 |
| Median home value | $142,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $118,100 ($72,660–$219,420) n=374 |
| Median gross rent | $692 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $827 ($532–$1,130) n=319 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 73.9 yr ± 0.89 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 75.4 yr (72.7–79.0) n=405 |
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 0.89 years of 73.9, 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