ZIP code
55429
in Brooklyn Center, MinnesotaPopulation 27,024
51.29/ 100
Ranked #14,424 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 45%)
Ranked #626 of 866 Minnesota ZIPs (bottom 28%)
Ranked #205 of 224 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI ZIPs (bottom 8.5%)
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.
Distance to a Superfund site
In this ZIP
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Transit access
5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Lithium in drinking water
9.8 µg/L
in the bottom 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST15thUS6thDefinition & 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 ›High cholesterol
31.5%
in the bottom 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Crowded housing
7.3%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
38%
in the top 8.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Walkability
99 intersections/sq mi
in the top 10.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS89thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Outer-floodplain exposure
2.9%
in the top 11.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
12.5%
in the top 11.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS88thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, ZIP 55429, one of several in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ranks in the top 45% healthiest ZIPs nationally (14,424th) and the bottom 28% of Minnesota (626th).
The signals balance out across the profile, strengths against concerns: transit is in the top 5.2% nationally, and lithium in drinking water settles in the bottom 5.8% nationally. Modeled high cholesterol resides in the bottom 5.5% nationally, and walkability registers in the top 10.6% nationally. Set against that, distance to a Superfund site rests at the national minimum, crowded housing stands in the top 7.9% nationally, and modeled expected annual loss lies in the top 7.9% nationally. Modeled loneliness lands in the top 8.7% nationally, PFAS in drinking water sits in the top 10.6% nationally, and outer-floodplain exposure is in the top 11.4% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Close by, ZIP 55422, 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 87%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 65%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 56%
11%
Disability
healthier than 52%
7%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 32%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 6%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 15%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 33%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 24%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 3%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 29%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 18%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 49%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 5%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 25%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 6%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 25%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 11%
8%
Disability
healthier than 6%
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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
3 of our published findings list 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.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 77.2 ± 1.2 years. A median household income of $72,253 predicts 78.8 years — 1.6 years below.
Ranked #1,944 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Below its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 77.2 ± 1.2 years. The 45 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 80.2 years — 2.9 years below them.
Ranked #2,327 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 6.5 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 86.5 — 80 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,188 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
55422
Minnesotashares a border
Score 59.82
Closest healthier
55428
Minnesotashares a border
Score 53.13
Similar health profile
90028
California97% similar profile
Score 55.11
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 | 18.5% | 17.2–20.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.4% | 29.5–33.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.5% | 9.5–11.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.9–5.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–6.1 |
| Depression among adults | 25.2% | 23.2–27.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.3% | 9.3–11.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 31.5% | 29.5–33.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.5% | 28.8–34.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.4% | 3.2–3.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 12.7% | 10.8–14.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 12.3% | 10.8–13.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 71.2% | 68.8–73.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.8% | 71.6–75.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.2% | 80.6–83.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.2% | 59.7–64.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 57.2% | 55.0–59.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.0% | 71.2–78.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 14.3–17.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 16.0% | 14.4–17.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.9% | 24.6–29.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.4% | 31.2–35.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.0% | 19.2–22.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.9–18.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.0% | 10.9–13.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.5% | 15.1–18.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.1% | 28.9–33.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.3–6.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.3–10.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.8% | 11.6–14.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.3% | 3.9–4.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 28.3% | 26.2–30.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 22.9% | 20.9–25.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.6% | 15.7–19.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.3% | 16.5–20.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.5% | 11.4–13.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 38.0% | 35.6–40.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.4% (3.6–16.8%) n=872 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 14.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.2% (2.3–12.7%) n=872 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 12.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.5% (2.2–11.2%) n=873 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 24.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.4% (13.6–48.8%) n=873 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.2% (0.8–7.1%) n=872 |
| Households without a vehicle | 11.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.4% (0.4–9.1%) n=871 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (81.6–95.3%) n=871 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 33.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.1% (14.0–31.1%) n=871 |
| Homeownership rate | 59.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.9% (67.0–94.0%) n=871 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 7.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.9%) n=871 |
| Foreign-born population | 23.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.1–11.9%) n=873 |
| Single-parent households | 36.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.9% (44.1–70.7%) n=870 |
| Population 65+ | 11.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–30.7%) n=873 |
| Median age | 34.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (35.2–54.3) n=873 |
| Median household income | $72,253 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $77,917 ($58,441–$110,840) n=864 |
| Median home value | $280,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $234,000 ($132,740–$396,860) n=857 |
| Median gross rent | $1,277 | $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 | 77.2 yr ± 0.59 | 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 0.59 years of 77.2, 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