ZIP code
67202
in Wichita, KansasPopulation 2,046
42.49/ 100
Ranked #24,839 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 23%)
Ranked #629 of 682 Kansas ZIPs (bottom 7.8%)
Ranked #67 of 77 Wichita, KS ZIPs (bottom 13.0%)
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.
Recreation access
4.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Mental-health provider access
0.82 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
3.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Homeownership rate
5.2%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
52.7%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Physician access
3.7 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›High cholesterol
30%
in the bottom 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental 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 ›The read
In its overall standing, ZIP 67202, one of several in Wichita, Kansas lands in the bottom 23% nationally (24,839th) and the bottom 7.8% of Kansas (629th).
Several serious readings shape the profile and deserve first mention: homeownership rests in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and modeled colon screening registers in the bottom 3.2% nationally. On the better side, recreation resides in the top 0.2% nationally, mental-health providers settles in the top 0.4% nationally, and civic is in the top 0.4% nationally. Elder services sits in the top 0.5% nationally, and outpatient lands in the top 1.2% nationally. Physicians lies in the top 2.4% nationally, and modeled high cholesterol stands in the bottom 3.4% nationally. Dental providers rests in the top 4.1% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, recreation runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. On the overall standing, ZIP 67203, just across the boundary, ranks healthier.
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 Wichita, KS 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 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 85%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 42%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 2%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 91%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 73%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 91%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 2%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 1%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 1%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 1%
8%
Disability
healthier than 35%
7%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 84%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 81%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 1%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 1%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 1%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 1%
8%
Disability
healthier than 27%
7%
“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 3.1 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 85.0 — 82 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,330 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
67203
Kansasshares a border
Score 43.37
Closest healthier
67208
Kansasabout 1.4 mi away
Score 48.30
Similar health profile
73102
Oklahoma96% similar profile
Score 47.34
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 | 17.9% | 16.3–19.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 29.7% | 27.3–32.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.5% | 9.3–11.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.9% | 5.8–8.1 |
| Depression among adults | 25.6% | 23.0–28.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.0% | 27.6–32.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 42.2% | 38.6–46.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.4–3.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 17.2% | 14.6–20.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.8% | 11.6–18.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 66.2% | 63.0–69.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 66.3% | 63.0–69.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 73.0% | 69.5–76.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 52.7% | 49.0–56.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 52.1% | 49.2–54.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 66.8% | 61.1–72.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 19.5% | 17.0–22.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 21.0% | 17.2–25.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.8% | 23.9–32.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.7% | 37.5–44.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.8% | 19.5–26.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 21.5% | 18.9–24.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.3% | 11.5–15.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.2% | 17.3–23.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 33.1% | 28.9–37.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.2–6.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.1% | 8.6–11.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.1% | 10.4–13.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.6–4.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 27.6% | 24.0–31.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 23.0% | 18.9–27.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.3% | 12.3–18.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.9% | 15.7–22.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.1–14.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 37.2% | 33.5–41.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 14.7% | 12.6–16.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | KS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 25.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.8% (2.7–20.7%) n=688 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 10.6% (2.3–24.2%) n=686 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 9.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.7% (1.1–14.8%) n=689 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 45.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 24.0% (11.3–43.6%) n=689 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–7.1%) n=689 |
| Households without a vehicle | 12.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=688 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.4% (75.3–96.9%) n=688 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 31.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 19.5% (7.8–31.9%) n=688 |
| Homeownership rate | 5.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (59.7–94.6%) n=688 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–4.6%) n=688 |
| Foreign-born population | 4.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.1% (0.0–9.9%) n=692 |
| Single-parent households | 75.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.7% (41.7–78.0%) n=684 |
| Population 65+ | 9.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.6% (11.9–35.1%) n=692 |
| Median age | 33.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.9 yr (32.2–56.9) n=689 |
| Median household income | $58,234 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $67,738 ($49,860–$97,877) n=659 |
| Median home value | $407,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $135,800 ($68,740–$290,700) n=627 |
| Median gross rent | $1,090 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $820 ($592–$1,257) n=519 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | KS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 73.8 yr ± 1.56 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.9 yr (76.2–81.8) n=687 |
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 1.56 years of 73.8, 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