ZIP code
60554
in Sugar Grove, IllinoisPopulation 12,081
64.27/ 100
Ranked #2,311 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 7.3%)
Ranked #90 of 1,368 Illinois ZIPs (top 6.6%)
Ranked #83 of 374 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN ZIPs (top 22%)
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.
Lack of transportation
4.6%
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.6%
in the bottom 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
9.8%
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
4.4%
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
5.2%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
7.2%
in the bottom 8.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Median household income
$122,734
in the top 8.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
5.6%
in the bottom 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
1.2%
in the top 9.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
13.4%
in the bottom 7.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›The read
Sugar Grove, Illinois (ZIP 60554), in overall standing, comes out in the top 7.3% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,311th) and the top 6.6% of Illinois (90th).
The measures that most flatter this area set the tone for the rest: modeled transportation settles in the bottom 4.4% nationally, food insecurity lands in the bottom 5.8% nationally, and cognitive disability rests in the bottom 4.3% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff settles in the bottom 6.6% nationally, tooth loss lands in the bottom 2.6% nationally, and housing insecurity rests in the bottom 8.8% nationally. Household income settles in the top 8.8% nationally, and modeled independent living disability lands in the bottom 6.0% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health rests in the bottom 7.3% nationally. Against that, slow internet speeds settles in the top 9.9% nationally.
Set within its surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 60134, about 1.2 miles away.
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 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 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 83%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 83%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 31%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 83%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 91%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 60%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 40%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 59%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 86%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 77%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 84%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 77%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 70%
8%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 54%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 49%
5%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 16%
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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 30.8; chronic-disease standing 83.1 — 52 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #14,618 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
60119
Illinoisshares a border
Score 64.22
Closest healthier
60134
Illinoisabout 1.2 mi away
Score 66.21
Similar health profile
07871
New Jersey100% similar profile
Score 68.51
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 | 26.0% | 23.0–29.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.6% | 27.2–34.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 9.0–10.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.6% | 8.4–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.6% | 4.9–6.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.3% | 4.5–6.2 |
| Depression among adults | 19.6% | 16.8–23.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.8% | 8.4–11.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.0% | 32.1–40.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.2% | 26.9–38.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.8% | 2.5–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.2% | 4.2–6.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.7% | 4.6–7.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.0% | 73.7–80.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.7% | 75.4–81.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.2% | 88.8–91.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.5% | 63.0–72.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.9% | 68.8–75.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.1% | 67.5–82.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.9% | 15.9–22.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.1% | 7.4–11.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.2% | 14.2–20.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.6% | 27.5–38.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.4% | 11.4–15.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.8% | 12.0–15.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.8% | 9.3–12.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.4–11.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 22.3% | 19.1–26.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.3–6.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.6% | 4.8–6.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.9% | 8.3–11.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.2–2.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.2% | 2.8–3.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.6% | 17.5–24.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.2–9.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.0–7.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.2% | 6.0–8.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.6% | 3.9–5.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.2% | 24.9–33.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.4% | 3.7–5.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.4% (3.4–21.4%) n=1,378 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 4.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.6% (1.7–15.2%) n=1,375 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.5% (2.1–16.1%) n=1,377 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 47.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.6% (9.3–49.2%) n=1,377 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.7–10.0%) n=1,375 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–11.8%) n=1,377 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.4% (77.4–96.0%) n=1,377 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 23.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.2% (10.7–34.7%) n=1,377 |
| Homeownership rate | 91.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.9% (61.0–94.1%) n=1,377 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.9% (0.0–4.1%) n=1,377 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–17.6%) n=1,378 |
| Single-parent households | 56.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 53.8% (39.6–70.3%) n=1,372 |
| Population 65+ | 24.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.4% (12.1–28.7%) n=1,378 |
| Median age | 45.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.1 yr (34.3–52.1) n=1,373 |
| Median household income | $122,734 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $75,429 ($50,714–$114,949) n=1,334 |
| Median home value | $386,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $154,250 ($86,310–$346,100) n=1,332 |
| Median gross rent | $1,486 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $934 ($675–$1,653) n=1,170 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.3 yr ± 0.94 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.9 yr (75.5–82.2) n=1,348 |
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 0.94 years of 81.3, 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