ZIP code
55125
in Woodbury, MinnesotaPopulation 44,185
68.09/ 100
Ranked #999 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 3.2%)
Ranked #18 of 866 Minnesota ZIPs (top 2.1%)
Ranked #18 of 224 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ZIPs (top 8.1%)
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.
Short sleep
25.6%
in the bottom 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Mammography
82.5%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›PFOA in drinking water
96.8%
in the top 5.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOA, one of the man-made “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
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 ›PFOS in drinking water
96.8%
in the top 5.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
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 ›Dental provider access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Fatal road crashes
1.8 per 100,000 residents per year
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST10thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, ZIP 55125, one of several in Woodbury, Minnesota ranks in the top 3.2% healthiest ZIPs nationally (999th) and the top 2.1% of Minnesota (18th).
The signals balance out across the profile, strengths against concerns: modeled short sleep rests in the bottom 0.6% nationally, and childcare stands in the top 2.3% nationally. Modeled mammography lies in the top 3.1% nationally. Distance to an emergency room lands at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Dental providers sits in the top 5.8% nationally. Set against that, modeled disaster risk is in the top 2.4% nationally, expected annual loss settles in the top 4.0% nationally, and industrial-pollution burden resides in the top 5.5% nationally. PFOA in drinking water registers in the top 5.6% nationally, and PFOS in drinking water rests in the top 5.7% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Close by, ZIP 55042, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 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 91%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 82%
8%
Disability
healthier than 95%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 75%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 65%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 23%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 94%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 41%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 65%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 84%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 89%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 89%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 93%
8%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 72%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 54%
14%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
“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 23.6; chronic-disease standing 91.2 (top 10%) — 68 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,164 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
55042
Minnesotashares a border
Score 68.65
Closest healthier
55129
Minnesotashares a border
Score 71.72
Similar health profile
55902
Minnesota100% similar profile
Score 67.29
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 | 20.5% | 18.5–22.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 28.5% | 25.8–31.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.4% | 7.6–9.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.4% | 8.3–10.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.8% | 4.3–5.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.5 |
| Depression among adults | 22.7% | 20.1–25.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.6% | 30.7–36.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.1% | 28.1–36.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.5% | 2.3–2.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.7% | 5.4–8.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.1% | 4.3–5.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.6% | 73.7–79.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.5% | 73.6–79.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.7% | 86.1–89.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.3% | 66.9–73.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.8% | 72.4–77.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 82.5% | 77.9–86.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.2% | 13.9–18.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.9% | 8.6–11.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.0% | 15.7–20.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 25.6% | 22.5–28.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 12.7% | 11.1–14.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.0% | 11.6–14.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.5% | 8.4–10.6 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.2–11.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 22.2% | 19.8–24.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.8–6.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 8.9% | 7.8–10.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.4% | 2.2–2.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.0% | 15.8–20.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 6.9–9.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.1% | 4.4–6.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 6.1–8.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–6.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.3% | 25.2–31.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.5% | 3.9–5.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.4% (3.6–16.8%) n=872 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.2% (2.3–12.7%) n=872 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.5% (2.2–11.2%) n=873 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 56.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.4% (13.6–48.8%) n=873 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.2% (0.8–7.1%) n=872 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.4% (0.4–9.1%) n=871 |
| Broadband subscription | 97.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (81.6–95.3%) n=871 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 24.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.1% (14.0–31.1%) n=871 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.9% (67.0–94.0%) n=871 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.9%) n=871 |
| Foreign-born population | 11.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.1–11.9%) n=873 |
| Single-parent households | 47.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.9% (44.1–70.7%) n=870 |
| Population 65+ | 16.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–30.7%) n=873 |
| Median age | 39.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (35.2–54.3) n=873 |
| Median household income | $119,260 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $77,917 ($58,441–$110,840) n=864 |
| Median home value | $416,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $234,000 ($132,740–$396,860) n=857 |
| Median gross rent | $1,868 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $925 ($650–$1,588) n=759 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 82.1 yr ± 0.76 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 81.1 yr (78.3–84.8) n=864 |
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 0.76 years of 82.1, 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