ZIP code
56225
in Clinton, MinnesotaPopulation 734
51.80/ 100
Ranked #13,701 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 43%)
Ranked #576 of 866 Minnesota ZIPs (bottom 33%)
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 community health center
60.7 mi
in the top 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest federally funded community health center, which serves patients regardless of ability to pay.
Full methodology ›Radon
3.5 pCi/L
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
74.7 mi
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Arsenic in groundwater
20.8%
in the top 6.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST82ndUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.5%
in the top 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST70thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Short sleep
29.4%
in the bottom 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST35thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
10.9%
in the bottom 10.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS11thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
19%
in the top 20% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS80thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
18.5 days/year
in the top 24% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS76thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
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
Clinton, Minnesota (ZIP 56225) ranks in the top 43% healthiest ZIPs nationally (13,701st) and the bottom 33% of Minnesota (576th).
Several signals sit on each side of the ledger here: distance to a Superfund site sits in the top 5.8% nationally. Unemployment resides at the national minimum, shared with about 15% of ZIPs. Modeled short sleep stands in the bottom 7.1% nationally, modeled loneliness sits in the bottom 10.3% nationally, and housing-cost burden resides in the bottom 10.6% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise stands at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs. Working the other way, distance to a community health center sits in the top 0.6% nationally, modeled radon resides in the top 4.7% nationally, and modeled arsenic stands in the top 6.1% nationally. Modeled fine-particle sits in the top 6.2% nationally.
Against its neighbors, outer-floodplain exposure runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For context, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 56221, 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
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 67%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 65%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 52%
21%
Disability
healthier than 59%
7%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 29%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 21%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 2%
5%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 75%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 56%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 20%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 21%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 34%
14%
Disability
healthier than 30%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 8%
5%
“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
56211
Minnesotashares a border
Score 49.94
Closest healthier
56221
Minnesotashares a border
Score 54.58
Similar health profile
56318
Minnesota97% similar profile
Score 52.64
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 | 28.0% | 24.7–31.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.0% | 30.9–39.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.4% | 9.4–11.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.4% | 9.2–11.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.7% | 6.8–8.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.3% | 6.3–8.3 |
| Depression among adults | 23.1% | 19.7–26.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.5% | 10.9–14.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.9% | 32.8–41.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.3% | 30.8–46.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.9% | 3.5–4.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 13.0% | 10.6–15.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.4% | 6.1–8.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.6% | 77.8–83.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.6% | 73.0–79.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.8% | 85.1–88.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.7% | 65.9–75.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.1% | 63.6–70.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.7% | 72.9–85.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.6% | 13.8–19.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.8% | 13.6–18.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.6% | 22.3–31.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.4% | 23.5–36.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 18.1% | 15.7–20.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.1% | 13.4–17.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.5% | 11.8–15.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.2% | 11.7–15.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.0% | 26.0–34.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.9% | 7.0–8.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.4% | 12.4–16.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.2% | 17.2–23.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.5–13.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.7% | 7.2–10.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.9% | 7.5–10.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.9% | 6.0–8.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.5% | 24.1–33.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 19.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.4% (3.6–16.8%) n=872 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.2% (2.3–12.7%) n=872 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.5% (2.2–11.2%) n=873 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.4% (13.6–48.8%) n=873 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.2% (0.8–7.1%) n=872 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.4% (0.4–9.1%) n=871 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (81.6–95.3%) n=871 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 10.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.1% (14.0–31.1%) n=871 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.9% (67.0–94.0%) n=871 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.9%) n=871 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.1–11.9%) n=873 |
| Single-parent households | 59.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.9% (44.1–70.7%) n=870 |
| Population 65+ | 25.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–30.7%) n=873 |
| Median age | 50.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (35.2–54.3) n=873 |
| Median household income | $95,978 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $77,917 ($58,441–$110,840) n=864 |
| Median home value | $133,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $234,000 ($132,740–$396,860) n=857 |
| Median gross rent | $635 | $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 | 79.0 yr ± 0.96 | 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 0.96 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