ZIP code
38924
in Cruger, MississippiPopulation 709
29.51/ 100
Ranked #30,861 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 3.8%)
Ranked #354 of 406 Mississippi ZIPs (bottom 12.9%)
Ranked #54 of 59 Jackson, MS ZIPs (bottom 8.5%)
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.
Self-care disability
9.7%
in the top 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Stroke
7.7%
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
24.9%
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
12.6%
in the top 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
57.4%
in the top 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
29%
in the top 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
31.2%
in the top 2.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
9.0%
in the bottom 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Independent-living disability
15.2%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
35.1%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Combined exposures in this ZIP
More than one environmental exposure stands out in this ZIP. Each is established independently and shown on its own above; they are grouped here for context — not because one causes the other.
This area ranks among the highest 10% of US ZIP codes for both humid-heat days and flood exposure.
See the full flooding, evacuation & humid-heat analysis →
The read
In overall standing, Cruger, Mississippi (ZIP 38924) comes out in the bottom 3.8% nationally (30,861st) and the bottom 12.9% of Mississippi (354th).
The data is direct about where this area carries real strain: modeled self-care disability lands in the top 0.9% nationally, stroke is in the top 0.5% nationally, and diabetes resides in the top 0.5% nationally. Modeled vision disability rests in the top 1.6% nationally, high blood pressure lies in the top 0.4% nationally, and mobility disability sits in the top 0.8% nationally. Modeled tooth loss settles in the top 2.5% nationally, and independent living disability registers in the top 2.4% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health stands in the top 2.6% nationally. More encouragingly, modeled binge drinking lands in the bottom 0.5% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 38923, 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 Jackson, MS 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 76%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 42%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 2%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 2%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 32%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 12%
11%
Disability
healthier than 1%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 1%
5%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 44%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 11%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 31%
11%
Disability
healthier than 10%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 4%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 71%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 2%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 9%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 29%
11%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 3%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 16%
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
38923
Mississippishares a border
Score 37.51
Closest healthier
38930
Mississippishares a border
Score 34.19
Similar health profile
38646
Mississippi99% similar profile
Score 27.34
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 | 37.8% | 34.6–41.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 57.4% | 53.7–61.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.4% | 6.8–8.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 10.0–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.8% | 9.7–11.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.4% | 10.9–14.1 |
| Depression among adults | 17.2% | 14.8–19.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 24.9% | 22.4–27.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.7% | 38.7–46.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 48.6% | 41.6–55.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 7.7% | 7.0–8.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 31.2% | 27.2–35.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.6% | 12.2–17.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.6% | 82.8–86.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 85.8% | 83.4–88.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.1% | 85.4–88.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.8% | 57.1–66.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 6.4% | 5.6–7.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.1% | 68.7–81.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 9.0% | 7.5–10.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 20.7% | 17.8–23.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 44.9% | 39.7–50.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 41.1% | 35.2–47.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 35.1% | 31.3–39.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.8–19.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.6% | 16.5–20.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.3% | 18.0–22.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 46.9% | 42.5–51.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.6–10.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.5–17.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 29.0% | 25.9–32.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–10.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 12.6% | 11.3–14.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 34.3% | 30.4–38.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 37.3% | 32.8–41.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 28.6% | 24.5–32.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 26.1% | 22.8–29.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 19.1% | 16.6–21.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 40.5% | 36.0–45.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 19.7% | 17.2–22.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 14.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 19.9% (8.3–37.0%) n=406 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 15.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 16.8% (8.1–29.3%) n=410 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 14.4% (5.9–25.0%) n=411 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 25.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.0% (7.1–33.6%) n=411 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.2%) n=411 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.5% (0.0–13.9%) n=405 |
| Broadband subscription | 49.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (62.7–93.0%) n=405 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 30.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.7% (9.7–36.0%) n=405 |
| Homeownership rate | 73.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.2% (49.8–91.7%) n=405 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–5.0%) n=405 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.6% (0.0–4.4%) n=412 |
| Single-parent households | 54.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 46.9% (29.2–61.4%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 22.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.8% (11.7–26.2%) n=412 |
| Median age | 38.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 39.5 yr (30.5–49.6) n=411 |
| Median household income | $43,750 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $50,353 ($32,100–$72,379) n=377 |
| Median home value | $90,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $118,100 ($72,660–$219,420) n=374 |
| Median gross rent | $1,081 | $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 | 73.3 yr ± 0.99 | 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 0.99 years of 73.3, 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