ZIP code
56387
in Waite Park, MinnesotaPopulation 7,756
46.28/ 100
Ranked #21,018 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 34%)
Ranked #815 of 866 Minnesota ZIPs (bottom 5.9%)
Ranked #32 of 32 St. Cloud, MN ZIPs (bottom 3.2%)
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.
PFAS in drinking water
83.3%
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Distance to a community health center
47.1 mi
in the top 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›Mental-health provider access
0.26 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics 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
0.39 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Outpatient-care access
0.65 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.6%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Recreation access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Nitrate in drinking water
0.72%
in the top 6.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Crowded housing
7.7%
in the top 7.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, Waite Park, Minnesota (ZIP 56387) ranks in the bottom 34% nationally (21,018th) and the bottom 5.9% of Minnesota (815th).
A number of measures mark where this area is under strain: modeled pfas rests in the top 1.3% nationally, and distance to a community health center stands in the top 1.4% nationally. Distance to a Superfund site lies at the national minimum, and modeled fine-particle lands in the top 5.8% nationally. Modeled nitrate sits in the top 6.9% nationally, and crowded housing is in the top 7.3% nationally. On the brighter side, mental-health providers settles in the top 2.7% nationally, elder services resides in the top 3.4% nationally, and outpatient registers in the top 4.7% nationally. Recreation rests in the top 6.4% 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, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Close by, ZIP 56301, 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 St. Cloud, MN metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 90%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 58%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 41%
11%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 35%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 28%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Disability
healthier than 34%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 2%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 83%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 28%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 26%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 15%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 7%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 9%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 7%
8%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 15%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 65%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 10%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 23%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 6%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the bottom 0.00%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 10%
8%
Disability
in the bottom 0.00%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 39%
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 ›
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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 80.1 ± 1.7 years. A median household income of $59,009 predicts 78.0 years — 2.2 years above.
Ranked #852 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
56301
Minnesotashares a border
Score 50.60
Closest healthier
56303
Minnesotashares a border
Score 52.79
Similar health profile
56437
Minnesota95% similar profile
Score 45.19
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 | 23.7% | 21.4–26.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 33.9% | 30.9–37.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.1% | 7.3–8.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.3% | 6.5–8.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.5% | 6.4–8.5 |
| Depression among adults | 24.9% | 21.9–28.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.3% | 10.8–13.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.3% | 30.3–36.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.9% | 35.1–44.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 16.8% | 14.0–20.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.3% | 9.3–13.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.0% | 73.5–78.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 75.1% | 71.9–78.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 81.1% | 78.6–83.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.1% | 62.9–71.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 59.0% | 55.8–62.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.3% | 70.8–82.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.4% | 14.0–19.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.1% | 14.7–19.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.3% | 25.4–33.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.6% | 29.4–38.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.9% | 19.2–24.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.0% | 16.0–20.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.0% | 12.3–15.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.0% | 15.0–19.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 33.1% | 29.5–37.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.2–9.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.0–11.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.0% | 13.0–17.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–7.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.5% | 22.2–28.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.7% | 17.6–23.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.0% | 14.4–19.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.8% | 13.5–18.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 10.0–13.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.7% | 29.5–37.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.1% | 8.7–11.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 22.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.4% (3.6–16.8%) n=872 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.2% (2.3–12.7%) n=872 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 14.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.5% (2.2–11.2%) n=873 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.4% (13.6–48.8%) n=873 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 7.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.2% (0.8–7.1%) n=872 |
| Households without a vehicle | 10.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.4% (0.4–9.1%) n=871 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (81.6–95.3%) n=871 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 42.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.1% (14.0–31.1%) n=871 |
| Homeownership rate | 48.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.9% (67.0–94.0%) n=871 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 7.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.9%) n=871 |
| Foreign-born population | 25.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.1–11.9%) n=873 |
| Single-parent households | 43.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.9% (44.1–70.7%) n=870 |
| Population 65+ | 19.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–30.7%) n=873 |
| Median age | 37.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (35.2–54.3) n=873 |
| Median household income | $59,009 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $77,917 ($58,441–$110,840) n=864 |
| Median home value | $232,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $234,000 ($132,740–$396,860) n=857 |
| Median gross rent | $1,129 | $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 | 80.1 yr ± 0.85 | 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 0.85 years of 80.1, 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