ZIP code
58423
in Chaseley, North DakotaPopulation 201
53.69/ 100
Ranked #11,092 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 35%)
Ranked #214 of 371 North Dakota ZIPs (bottom 42%)
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.
Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
203.9 mi
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST64thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Slow internet speeds
9.4%
in the top 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
89 µg/L
in the top 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST78thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
27.3%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST39thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Distance to a community health center
29.1 mi
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST70thUS96thDefinition & 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
3.2 pCi/L
in the top 7.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST50thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Hearing disability
11.6%
in the top 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
2.0%
in the bottom 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST15thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite measure, Chaseley, North Dakota (ZIP 58423) sits in the top 35% healthiest ZIPs nationally (11,092nd) and the bottom 42% of North Dakota (214th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The readings split fairly evenly between strengths and concerns: modeled industrial-pollution burden settles in the bottom 0.6% nationally, distance to a Superfund site stands in the top 1.0% nationally, and homeownership is at the national maximum. Modeled loneliness rests in the bottom 4.1% nationally, and poverty sits in the bottom 6.8% nationally. Working the other way, slow internet speeds registers in the top 1.5% nationally, and lithium in drinking water lands in the top 3.3% nationally. Distance to a community health center resides in the top 4.3% nationally, and modeled radon lies in the top 7.3% nationally. Modeled hearing disability settles in the top 6.0% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain language, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. 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. ZIP 58494, about 12 miles away, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 63%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 70%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 85%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 55%
14%
Disability
healthier than 45%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 26%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 3%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 87%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 79%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 47%
16%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 56%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 16%
21%
Disability
healthier than 24%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 26%
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
58341
North Dakotashares a border
Score 50.30
Closest healthier
58494
North Dakotaabout 12 mi away
Score 57.40
Similar health profile
58787
North Dakota99% similar profile
Score 54.31
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 | 35.1% | 31.7–38.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 41.1% | 37.3–45.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 12.1% | 10.9–13.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.4–10.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.6% | 7.0–10.5 |
| Depression among adults | 18.7% | 16.1–21.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.5% | 11.6–15.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.8% | 37.0–44.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.6% | 31.4–44.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.6% | 4.0–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.8% | 12.2–17.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.9% | 5.2–8.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 83.7% | 81.3–85.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.7% | 75.8–81.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.1% | 85.3–88.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.3% | 63.9–72.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 66.0% | 62.8–68.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.7% | 73.4–84.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.6% | 15.2–20.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.8% | 11.1–16.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.7% | 21.2–30.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.5% | 24.5–34.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.1% | 16.0–22.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 12.4% | 10.8–14.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.9% | 11.9–16.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.7% | 9.9–13.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.5% | 28.1–37.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.6% | 10.3–13.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.8% | 6.5–9.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.2% | 13.5–19.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.5–5.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.3–6.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.7% | 16.7–23.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.3% | 7.3–12.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 4.5–8.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.0% | 5.6–8.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.5–6.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.3% | 23.4–31.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.7% | 3.9–5.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ND median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 2.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.0% (1.0–21.4%) n=380 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.5% (0.0–19.2%) n=380 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.3% (0.6–13.4%) n=382 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 47.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 24.6% (12.5–41.0%) n=382 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 1.1% (0.0–6.5%) n=382 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–7.4%) n=379 |
| Broadband subscription | 73.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.7% (75.3–98.1%) n=379 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 15.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 15.2% (4.0–28.2%) n=379 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.5% (59.2–98.7%) n=379 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.0% (0.0–4.6%) n=379 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.9% (0.0–5.7%) n=383 |
| Single-parent households | 28.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 59.3% (40.0–83.3%) n=377 |
| Population 65+ | 16.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.6% (9.1–38.9%) n=383 |
| Median age | 40.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.9 yr (31.1–60.2) n=381 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $79,666 ($56,729–$115,391) n=354 |
| Median home value | $159,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $159,750 ($88,870–$297,180) n=328 |
| Median gross rent | — | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $767 ($513–$1,222) n=212 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ND median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 83.9 yr ± 1.95 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.0 yr (77.6–84.0) n=379 |
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 1.95 years of 83.9, 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