ZIP code
65807
in Springfield, MissouriPopulation 56,659
48.29/ 100
Ranked #18,562 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 42%)
Ranked #262 of 993 Missouri ZIPs (top 26%)
Ranked #20 of 52 Springfield, MO ZIPs (top 38%)
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.
Natural-disaster risk
in the top 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
438 units
in the top 5.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
44.5%
in the bottom 6.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST4thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›PFOS in drinking water
91.9%
in the top 8.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
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 ›Physician access
1.8 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices 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 ›Lead in tap water
5.1 ppb
in the top 9.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
US90thDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
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 ›Transit access
2.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 10.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS89thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Walkability
96 intersections/sq mi
in the top 11.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS89thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
11 µg/L
in the bottom 11.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS11thDefinition & 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 ›The read
ZIP 65807, one of several in Springfield, Missouri, in overall standing, comes out in the bottom 42% nationally (18,562nd) and the top 26% of Missouri (262nd).
A balanced showing across the data, with a few readings each side: subsidized affordable housing resides in the top 5.3% nationally. Distance to an emergency room sits at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Physicians stands in the top 8.5% nationally, and transit resides in the top 10.6% nationally. Walkability sits in the top 11.1% nationally. On the other hand, modeled disaster risk stands in the top 3.5% nationally, and homeownership resides in the bottom 6.7% nationally. Modeled expected annual loss sits in the top 7.2% nationally, and PFOS in drinking water stands in the top 8.2% nationally. Lead in tap water resides in the top 9.7% nationally.
Set within its surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, for reference, disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. PFOS in drinking water is a common one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 65619, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Springfield, MO 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 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 60%
16%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 43%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 8%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 22%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Disability
healthier than 39%
7%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 66%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 82%
11%
Disability
healthier than 69%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 80%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 9%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 21%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 35%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 84%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 61%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 80%
11%
Disability
healthier than 66%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.00%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 27%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 39%
8%
“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 7.7 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 67.1 — 59 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,347 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
65619
Missourishares a border
Score 57.60
Closest healthier
65804
Missourishares a border
Score 53.37
Similar health profile
63103
Missouri95% similar profile
Score 46.54
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 | 26.9% | 24.3–29.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.2% | 29.0–35.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.9% | 7.2–8.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.4% | 5.8–7.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.7% | 6.9–8.6 |
| Depression among adults | 24.9% | 21.7–28.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.7% | 9.4–12.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.2% | 30.8–38.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.6% | 30.9–42.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.4% | 3.1–3.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.1% | 11.5–16.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.0% | 7.8–10.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.2% | 72.7–77.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.0% | 73.7–80.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 81.5% | 79.5–83.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.9% | 57.9–67.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 59.1% | 55.5–62.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.1% | 64.3–78.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 13.3–18.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.2% | 13.3–17.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.4% | 22.7–30.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.8% | 32.5–43.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 20.0% | 17.7–22.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.8% | 16.8–21.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.7–16.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.9% | 17.0–20.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.4% | 33.5–41.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.2% | 7.4–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.8–10.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.0% | 13.3–16.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.8–5.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.2% | 16.4–22.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.5% | 12.5–16.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 11.2% | 9.7–12.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.2% | 10.6–14.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 8.1–10.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.8% | 28.3–37.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 8.0–10.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 13.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.3% (3.2–26.0%) n=1,009 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.2% (3.5–28.4%) n=1,006 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.5% (2.5–20.5%) n=1,009 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 33.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.1% (7.2–40.2%) n=1,009 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.5%) n=1,003 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–11.9%) n=1,009 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.3% (72.7–95.2%) n=1,009 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 34.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.7% (8.4–33.9%) n=1,009 |
| Homeownership rate | 44.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.4% (56.0–94.3%) n=1,009 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–5.1%) n=1,009 |
| Foreign-born population | 4.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.8% (0.0–6.4%) n=1,010 |
| Single-parent households | 53.9% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (39.5–75.6%) n=1,005 |
| Population 65+ | 17.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.2% (11.7–31.1%) n=1,010 |
| Median age | 34.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.5 yr (33.3–55.9) n=1,005 |
| Median household income | $53,870 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,740 ($42,457–$95,231) n=948 |
| Median home value | $192,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $174,150 ($91,880–$309,500) n=930 |
| Median gross rent | $1,054 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $813 ($553–$1,265) n=786 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 77.9 yr ± 0.56 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.6 yr (74.6–81.0) n=995 |
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 0.56 years of 77.9, 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