ZIP code
50112
in Grinnell, IowaPopulation 11,862
53.21/ 100
Ranked #11,773 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 37%)
Ranked #394 of 922 Iowa ZIPs (top 43%)
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.
Radon
4 pCi/L
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST75thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
130 µg/L
in the top 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
18%
in the top 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Elder-services access
0.17 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Binge drinking
19.4%
in the top 8.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST41stUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 12.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS88thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
168 units
in the top 13.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS87thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
2.7 mi
in the bottom 13.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST5thUS14thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
9.5%
in the top 16% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS84thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Physician access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 17% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS83rdDefinition & 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 ›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 modeled radon and modeled groundwater arsenic.
See the full radon & arsenic analysis →
The read
In overall standing, Grinnell, Iowa (ZIP 50112) comes out in the top 37% healthiest ZIPs nationally (11,773rd) and the top 43% of Iowa (394th).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: distance to an emergency room stands at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Elder services lands in the top 8.8% nationally, modeled short sleep is in the bottom 10.5% nationally, and mental-health providers resides in the top 12.8% nationally. Subsidized affordable housing rests in the top 13.5% nationally. Set against that, modeled radon lies in the top 2.1% nationally, and lithium in drinking water sits in the top 1.5% nationally. Modeled arsenic settles in the top 7.5% nationally, and binge drinking registers in the top 8.8% nationally. Modeled disaster risk stands in the top 12.0% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 50106, 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
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 68%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 61%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 61%
11%
Disability
healthier than 62%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 4%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 23%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 72%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 88%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 75%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 1%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 20%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 13%
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 4.6 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 68.3 — 64 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,768 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
50106
Iowashares a border
Score 55.32
Closest healthier
50153
Iowashares a border
Score 56.11
Similar health profile
89441
Nevada95% similar profile
Score 56.66
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 | 26.6% | 23.8–29.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 33.5% | 30.0–37.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.0% | 8.2–9.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.9% | 6.1–7.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.1% | 6.2–8.1 |
| Depression among adults | 21.8% | 18.6–25.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.8% | 9.4–12.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.4% | 30.7–38.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.0% | 31.8–45.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–3.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.2% | 8.3–12.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.5% | 5.3–7.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.5% | 76.2–80.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.0% | 73.4–80.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.6% | 80.2–84.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.3% | 62.7–71.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 69.1% | 65.8–72.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.1% | 72.4–84.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 19.4% | 16.3–22.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.5% | 11.7–15.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.7% | 20.7–28.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.2% | 24.5–36.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.5% | 15.2–19.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.8% | 14.7–18.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.5% | 11.0–14.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.2% | 12.2–16.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 29.6% | 25.6–33.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.1% | 7.2–9.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.0% | 6.9–9.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.1% | 11.3–14.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.0–3.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.5% | 3.9–5.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.4% | 19.9–27.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 9.6–13.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.6% | 7.9–11.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.6% | 7.2–10.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.0% | 6.0–8.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.4% | 28.6–38.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 5.1–6.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (2.7–19.1%) n=931 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.4% (0.7–14.7%) n=931 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.1% (1.6–12.9%) n=932 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 35.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.9% (9.8–36.8%) n=932 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–6.7%) n=932 |
| Households without a vehicle | 9.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.4% (0.0–7.9%) n=931 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.5% (77.9–95.1%) n=931 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.2% (9.0–28.8%) n=931 |
| Homeownership rate | 68.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 82.1% (66.8–93.5%) n=931 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–3.3%) n=931 |
| Foreign-born population | 4.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.0% (0.0–7.2%) n=932 |
| Single-parent households | 60.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.8% (43.7–75.5%) n=928 |
| Population 65+ | 21.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–31.0%) n=932 |
| Median age | 38.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.7 yr (34.1–54.7) n=931 |
| Median household income | $67,078 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,848 ($55,055–$102,762) n=911 |
| Median home value | $214,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $161,100 ($93,820–$278,170) n=892 |
| Median gross rent | $894 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $825 ($614–$1,113) n=771 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.0 yr ± 0.94 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.0 yr (77.2–83.4) n=917 |
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 0.94 years of 79.0, 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