ZIP code
51027
in Ireton, IowaPopulation 1,280
55.57/ 100
Ranked #8,777 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 27%)
Ranked #222 of 922 Iowa ZIPs (top 24%)
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
5.1 pCi/L
in the top 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Grocery access
0.77 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Fiber broadband
99.8%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
20.7%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Arsenic in groundwater
24.7%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Nitrate in drinking water
3.9%
in the top 4.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of this area’s domestic-well groundwater at or above the federal nitrate limit of 10 milligrams 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 ›Short sleep
28.4%
in the bottom 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
1 mi
in the bottom 7.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST3rdUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Walkability
2.1 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 8.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST4thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.1%
in the top 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
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.
USGS models a high likelihood that groundwater arsenic here exceeds 10 µg/L — the level EPA sets as the limit for public water systems — and this area's modeled radon runs above EPA's 4 pCi/L action level.
See the full radon & arsenic analysis →
The read
By the composite measure, Ireton, Iowa (ZIP 51027) sits in the top 27% healthiest ZIPs nationally (8,777th) and the top 24% of Iowa (222nd).
The readings split fairly evenly between strengths and concerns: grocery sits in the top 0.7% nationally, fiber broadband registers in the top 2.4% nationally, and modeled short sleep lands in the bottom 4.0% nationally. Working the other way, modeled radon resides in the top 0.2% nationally, binge drinking lies in the top 3.9% nationally, and arsenic settles in the top 4.5% nationally. Modeled nitrate stands in the top 4.6% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site is in the bottom 7.3% nationally. Walkability rests in the bottom 8.2% nationally, and modeled fine-particle sits in the top 8.6% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, grocery runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain language, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Nitrate is a groundwater compound from fertilizer, manure, and sewage, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. ZIP 51031, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall.
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 73%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 63%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 63%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Disability
healthier than 73%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 50%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 14%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 79%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 73%
11%
Disability
healthier than 74%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 14%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 23%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 28%
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 14.3; chronic-disease standing 72.6 — 58 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,245 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
51001
Iowashares a border
Score 54.34
Closest healthier
51031
Iowashares a border
Score 55.99
Similar health profile
12144
New York97% similar profile
Score 59.30
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 | 25.0% | 22.3–28.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 34.3% | 30.9–38.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.5% | 7.8–9.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.3% | 5.6–7.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.9% | 6.0–7.9 |
| Depression among adults | 20.9% | 18.0–24.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.5% | 9.2–12.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.2% | 32.5–40.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 35.6% | 29.7–42.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 11.7% | 9.5–14.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.7% | 6.4–9.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.4% | 73.7–79.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.8% | 73.5–80.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.1% | 82.1–86.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.4% | 64.2–72.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.3% | 64.2–70.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.0% | 75.4–85.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 20.7% | 17.8–24.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.9% | 13.4–18.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.8% | 20.9–29.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 28.4% | 24.1–32.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.2% | 14.8–19.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.5% | 14.6–18.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.9% | 11.4–14.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.9% | 12.1–15.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.8% | 23.1–30.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.3–8.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.3–8.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.1% | 10.4–14.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.3% | 2.9–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.3% | 20.9–28.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 9.5–13.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 7.5–11.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.3% | 7.8–10.9 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.5% | 5.6–7.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.2% | 28.5–38.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 5.2–7.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (2.7–19.1%) n=931 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 11.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.4% (0.7–14.7%) n=931 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.1% (1.6–12.9%) n=932 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.9% (9.8–36.8%) n=932 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–6.7%) n=932 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.4% (0.0–7.9%) n=931 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.5% (77.9–95.1%) n=931 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 14.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.2% (9.0–28.8%) n=931 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 82.1% (66.8–93.5%) n=931 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–3.3%) n=931 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.0% (0.0–7.2%) n=932 |
| Single-parent households | 41.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.8% (43.7–75.5%) n=928 |
| Population 65+ | 10.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–31.0%) n=932 |
| Median age | 36.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.7 yr (34.1–54.7) n=931 |
| Median household income | $100,893 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,848 ($55,055–$102,762) n=911 |
| Median home value | $227,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $161,100 ($93,820–$278,170) n=892 |
| Median gross rent | $1,094 | $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 | 81.5 yr ± 1.29 | 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 1.29 years of 81.5, 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