ZIP code
39157
in Ridgeland, MississippiPopulation 24,562
58.22/ 100
Ranked #6,218 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 19%)
Ranked #7 of 406 Mississippi ZIPs (top 1.8%)
Ranked #4 of 59 Jackson, MS ZIPs (top 6.8%)
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.
Mental-health provider access
0.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics 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 ›Civic-institution access
0.93 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›Dental provider access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 6.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Outpatient-care access
0.53 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics 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 ›Homeownership rate
47.3%
in the bottom 7.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST8thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.41 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
35.7 per million
in the top 8.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Physician access
1.7 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices 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 ›The read
Ridgeland, Mississippi (ZIP 39157), by its overall standing, sits in the top 19% healthiest ZIPs nationally (6,218th) and the top 1.8% of Mississippi (7th).
The data is generous to this ZIP in several places worth naming: mental-health providers resides in the top 4.1% nationally, civic rests in the top 4.7% nationally, and dental providers lies in the top 5.0% nationally. Recreation sits in the top 6.2% nationally, outpatient settles in the top 7.1% nationally, and pharmacy registers in the top 7.9% nationally. Physicians stands in the top 9.4% nationally. Working the other way, modeled expected annual loss lands in the top 6.1% nationally, and homeownership is in the bottom 7.8% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk resides in the top 8.8% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 39047, 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
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 78%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 72%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 91%
8%
Disability
healthier than 72%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 11%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 96%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 97%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 97%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the top 0.8%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 99%
8%
Disability
healthier than 97%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 75%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 1%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 97%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 2%
14%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 11.3; chronic-disease standing 77.7 — 66 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,063 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
39047
Mississippishares a border
Score 58.29
Closest healthier
39110
Mississippishares a border
Score 65.80
Similar health profile
85020
Arizona98% similar profile
Score 57.18
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 | 25.2% | 22.1–28.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.1% | 34.9–43.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.0% | 7.2–8.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.3% | 8.1–10.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–6.0 |
| Depression among adults | 17.5% | 14.6–20.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.5% | 9.9–13.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.0% | 30.7–39.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 35.4% | 28.8–42.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.2% | 2.9–3.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.8% | 7.0–10.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.8% | 7.5–10.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.8% | 76.0–81.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.5% | 79.2–85.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.9% | 87.3–90.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.4% | 63.4–72.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 14.9% | 12.7–17.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.8% | 71.6–84.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.9% | 11.3–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.9% | 9.2–12.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.9% | 21.8–30.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.0% | 26.2–37.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.0% | 14.8–19.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.7% | 12.9–16.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.5% | 11.9–15.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.3% | 26.4–34.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.4% | 5.6–7.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.3% | 6.5–8.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.0% | 11.3–14.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.1–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.9% | 21.5–28.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.9% | 12.7–17.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 6.8–9.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.9% | 11.1–14.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.7% | 7.6–9.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.5% | 29.7–39.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.1–9.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 19.9% (8.3–37.0%) n=406 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 16.8% (8.1–29.3%) n=410 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 14.4% (5.9–25.0%) n=411 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 51.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.0% (7.1–33.6%) n=411 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.2%) n=411 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.5% (0.0–13.9%) n=405 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (62.7–93.0%) n=405 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 36.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.7% (9.7–36.0%) n=405 |
| Homeownership rate | 47.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.2% (49.8–91.7%) n=405 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–5.0%) n=405 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.6% (0.0–4.4%) n=412 |
| Single-parent households | 44.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 46.9% (29.2–61.4%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 14.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.8% (11.7–26.2%) n=412 |
| Median age | 35.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 39.5 yr (30.5–49.6) n=411 |
| Median household income | $66,068 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $50,353 ($32,100–$72,379) n=377 |
| Median home value | $275,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $118,100 ($72,660–$219,420) n=374 |
| Median gross rent | $1,337 | $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 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