ZIP code
60613
in Chicago, IllinoisPopulation 52,244
67.19/ 100
Ranked #1,226 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 3.9%)
Ranked #45 of 1,368 Illinois ZIPs (top 3.3%)
Ranked #45 of 374 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN ZIPs (top 12.1%)
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.
Binge drinking
24.9%
in the top 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
19.8%
in the bottom 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
26.7%
in the bottom 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$1
in the top 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
2.8%
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
3.4%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
5.8%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Stroke
1.6%
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
35.4%
in the top 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
5.8%
in the bottom 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 60613, one of several in Chicago, Illinois, overall, ranks in the top 3.9% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,226th) and the top 3.3% of Illinois (45th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: modeled high blood pressure lies in the bottom 1.3% nationally, high cholesterol stands in the bottom 1.6% nationally, and coronary heart disease rests in the bottom 1.4% nationally. Modeled hearing disability registers in the bottom 1.2% nationally, mobility disability resides in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and stroke settles in the bottom 1.4% nationally. Modeled diabetes is in the bottom 1.5% nationally. On the other side, modeled binge drinking sits in the top 0.6% nationally, and expected annual loss lands in the top 1.0% nationally. Households without a vehicle lies in the top 1.8% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, walkability runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. ZIP 60657, just across the boundary, comes out 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 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 99%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 76%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 80%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.7%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 14%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 30%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 99%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 80%
8%
Disability
healthier than 99%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 23%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 23%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 19%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 97%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 76%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 68%
11%
Disability
healthier than 96%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 56%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 48%
8%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 31%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 9%
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 5.7 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 98.8 (top 10%) — 93 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #18,046 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
60618
Illinoisshares a border
Score 61.69
Closest healthier
60657
Illinoisshares a border
Score 70.96
Similar health profile
77006
Texas99% similar profile
Score 66.49
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 | 13.9% | 12.6–15.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 19.8% | 17.9–21.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.9% | 4.5–5.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.2% | 8.3–10.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 2.8% | 2.5–3.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.0% | 2.7–3.3 |
| Depression among adults | 21.2% | 18.8–23.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 26.7% | 24.4–28.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 25.2% | 22.2–28.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 1.6% | 1.5–1.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.3% | 4.3–6.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.3% | 5.5–7.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 64.2% | 61.2–66.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.3% | 70.3–75.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.8% | 85.2–88.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.1% | 57.4–64.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.0% | 68.3–73.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.3% | 72.2–82.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 24.9% | 22.2–27.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.1% | 6.1–8.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 13.3% | 11.6–15.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.6% | 28.3–35.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 10.7% | 9.6–11.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.5% | 13.0–15.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 7.6% | 6.8–8.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 18.0% | 16.1–20.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.0–3.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.8% | 1.6–1.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.6% | 2.4–2.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.7% | 19.5–24.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–11.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.5–8.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 8.1–10.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.8% | 29.9–35.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.6–6.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.4% (3.4–21.4%) n=1,378 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.6% (1.7–15.2%) n=1,375 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.5% (2.1–16.1%) n=1,377 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 74.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.6% (9.3–49.2%) n=1,377 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.7–10.0%) n=1,375 |
| Households without a vehicle | 35.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–11.8%) n=1,377 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.4% (77.4–96.0%) n=1,377 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 32.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.2% (10.7–34.7%) n=1,377 |
| Homeownership rate | 38.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.9% (61.0–94.1%) n=1,377 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.9% (0.0–4.1%) n=1,377 |
| Foreign-born population | 16.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–17.6%) n=1,378 |
| Single-parent households | 53.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 53.8% (39.6–70.3%) n=1,372 |
| Population 65+ | 10.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.4% (12.1–28.7%) n=1,378 |
| Median age | 34.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.1 yr (34.3–52.1) n=1,373 |
| Median household income | $95,572 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $75,429 ($50,714–$114,949) n=1,334 |
| Median home value | $390,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $154,250 ($86,310–$346,100) n=1,332 |
| Median gross rent | $1,705 | $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 unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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