ZIP code
51249
in Sibley, IowaPopulation 3,564
47.10/ 100
Ranked #20,046 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 37%)
Ranked #824 of 922 Iowa ZIPs (bottom 10.7%)
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
4.7 pCi/L
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & 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
0.56 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% 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 ›Arsenic in groundwater
34.9%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Pharmacy access
0.56 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Elder-services access
0.28 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST89thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Child-care access
0.56 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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 ›Fiber broadband
96.4%
in the top 8.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST74thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.1%
in the top 9.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Poverty rate
22.5%
in the top 14.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS86thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
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
On balance, and by the composite measure, Sibley, Iowa (ZIP 51249) ranks in the bottom 37% nationally (20,046th) and the bottom 10.7% of Iowa (824th).
Where this area bears down hardest, the measures speak first: modeled radon sits in the top 0.5% nationally, and arsenic rests in the top 2.3% nationally. Modeled fine-particle is in the top 9.1% nationally. On the encouraging side, grocery stands in the top 1.2% nationally, civic settles in the top 3.3% nationally, and pharmacy lies in the top 4.0% nationally. Elder services resides in the top 5.0% nationally. Distance to an emergency room lands at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Childcare registers in the top 8.3% nationally, and fiber broadband sits in the top 8.9% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs it borders, grocery runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plainer terms, 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. Fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 51232, 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
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 47%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 34%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 8%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 31%
11%
Disability
healthier than 30%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 84%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 55%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 18%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 5%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 10%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 31%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Disability
healthier than 3%
7%
“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
51232
Iowashares a border
Score 47.10
Closest healthier
51237
Iowashares a border
Score 50.90
Similar health profile
15314
Pennsylvania96% similar profile
Score 46.13
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 | 30.8% | 27.3–34.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.9% | 34.6–43.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 8.8–11.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.2% | 9.0–11.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.6% | 7.6–9.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.4% | 8.0–11.1 |
| Depression among adults | 20.6% | 17.3–24.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.0% | 12.0–16.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.9% | 33.5–42.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 40.6% | 32.0–49.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.4% | 3.9–5.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.6% | 11.8–17.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.2% | 8.3–12.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.1% | 77.4–82.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.8% | 74.0–81.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.6% | 81.4–85.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.3% | 62.1–72.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.6% | 62.0–69.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.7% | 66.4–81.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.0% | 14.8–21.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.5% | 14.8–20.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 31.1% | 25.8–36.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.0% | 25.7–38.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.9% | 19.6–26.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.7% | 14.8–19.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.4% | 13.4–17.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.6% | 13.5–18.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.6% | 29.9–39.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.6% | 8.3–11.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.4% | 14.8–20.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.2–7.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.1% | 20.5–28.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.0% | 13.0–19.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 14.0% | 11.3–16.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.6–13.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.1–9.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.6% | 27.5–38.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.9% | 6.7–9.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 22.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (2.7–19.1%) n=931 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.4% (0.7–14.7%) n=931 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.1% (1.6–12.9%) n=932 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.9% (9.8–36.8%) n=932 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–6.7%) n=932 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.4% (0.0–7.9%) n=931 |
| Broadband subscription | 87.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.5% (77.9–95.1%) n=931 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.2% (9.0–28.8%) n=931 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 82.1% (66.8–93.5%) n=931 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–3.3%) n=931 |
| Foreign-born population | 6.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.0% (0.0–7.2%) n=932 |
| Single-parent households | 57.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.8% (43.7–75.5%) n=928 |
| Population 65+ | 20.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–31.0%) n=932 |
| Median age | 41.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.7 yr (34.1–54.7) n=931 |
| Median household income | $61,500 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,848 ($55,055–$102,762) n=911 |
| Median home value | $160,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $161,100 ($93,820–$278,170) n=892 |
| Median gross rent | $774 | $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 ± 1.25 | 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 1.25 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