ZIP code
39406
in Hattiesburg, MississippiPopulation 1,935
44.46/ 100
Ranked #22,959 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 28%)
Ranked #128 of 406 Mississippi ZIPs (top 32%)
Ranked #7 of 11 Hattiesburg, MS ZIPs (bottom 36%)
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 cholesterol
13.7%
in the bottom 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
31.8%
in the top 0.08% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
39.6%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
16.8%
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
1.2%
in the bottom 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
2.8%
in the bottom 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
49.5%
in the top 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
27.2%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Stroke
0.90%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 39406, one of several in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, by its overall standing, sits in the bottom 28% nationally (22,959th) and the top 32% of Mississippi (128th).
The profile opens on the burdens that define it most: modeled cognitive disability stands in the top 0.08% nationally, colon screening lands in the bottom 0.2% nationally, and independent living disability is in the top 1.1% nationally. Modeled loneliness resides in the top 0.2% nationally, slow internet speeds rests at the national maximum, and modeled transportation lies in the top 0.3% nationally. Modeled food insecurity sits in the top 1.5% nationally. More positively, modeled high blood pressure settles in the bottom 1.3% nationally, and hearing disability registers in the bottom 1.1% nationally. Modeled transportation noise stands at the national minimum.
Held up against its neighbors, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 39402, just across the boundary. Looking wider, the ZIP also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
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 Hattiesburg, 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 98%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 84%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 1%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 2%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 32%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 2%
8%
Disability
healthier than 29%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 99%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 68%
11%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 96%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 81%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 9%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 13%
14%
Preventive Care
in the bottom 0.8%
13%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.4%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.00%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 60%
11%
Disability
healthier than 60%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
in the bottom 0.00%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
in the bottom 0.00%
13%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.00%
8%
“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 42.2; chronic-disease standing 98.5 (top 10%) — 56 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,035 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
39401
Mississippishares a border
Score 42.17
Closest healthier
39402
Mississippishares a border
Score 53.37
Similar health profile
67260
Kansas99% similar profile
Score 41.38
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 | 6.5% | 5.3–7.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 19.7% | 16.5–23.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 0.7% | 0.6–0.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.9% | 10.3–13.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 1.2% | 1.0–1.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.4% | 2.6–4.3 |
| Depression among adults | 27.1% | 23.0–31.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 2.8% | 2.3–3.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 13.7% | 11.2–16.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.0% | 24.9–37.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 0.9% | 0.7–1.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 23.3% | 19.0–27.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.4% | 9.9–18.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 29.5% | 24.5–35.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.9% | 69.3–77.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 62.1% | 56.1–67.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 39.6% | 35.0–44.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 5.6% | 4.7–6.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.2% | 70.6–84.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.3% | 13.2–19.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.1% | 7.9–14.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.9% | 23.4–36.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 41.7% | 35.5–47.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.3% | 18.5–28.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 29.5% | 24.9–33.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.2% | 9.1–13.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 31.8% | 26.1–37.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 45.0% | 38.2–51.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 3.2% | 2.6–3.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 16.8% | 13.1–20.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 6.6% | 5.1–8.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.2–3.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.5% | 6.8–10.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 31.4% | 25.9–36.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 41.6% | 31.5–50.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 25.9% | 17.1–33.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 24.7% | 18.1–29.9 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 27.2% | 21.3–32.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 49.5% | 43.7–55.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 17.5% | 13.0–21.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | — | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 19.9% (8.3–37.0%) n=406 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 10.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 16.8% (8.1–29.3%) n=410 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 14.4% (5.9–25.0%) n=411 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 100.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.0% (7.1–33.6%) n=411 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 10.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.2%) n=411 |
| Households without a vehicle | — | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.5% (0.0–13.9%) n=405 |
| Broadband subscription | — | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (62.7–93.0%) n=405 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | — | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.7% (9.7–36.0%) n=405 |
| Homeownership rate | — | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.2% (49.8–91.7%) n=405 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | — | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–5.0%) n=405 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.6% (0.0–4.4%) n=412 |
| Single-parent households | — | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 46.9% (29.2–61.4%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 0.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.8% (11.7–26.2%) n=412 |
| Median age | 20.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 39.5 yr (30.5–49.6) n=411 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $50,353 ($32,100–$72,379) n=377 |
| Median home value | — | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $118,100 ($72,660–$219,420) n=374 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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