ZIP code
68725
in Chambers, NebraskaPopulation 647
55.19/ 100
Ranked #9,218 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 29%)
Ranked #222 of 566 Nebraska ZIPs (top 39%)
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.
Child-care access
4.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.02% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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
2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
26.8%
in the bottom 2.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST10thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.6 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 5.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST10thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.02%
in the bottom 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS6thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
5.4%
in the top 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
72.8%
in the bottom 8.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST6thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
7.1%
in the bottom 8.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST18thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
56.3 mi
in the top 9.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST82ndUS90thDefinition & 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
0.82%
in the top 11.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS88thDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Full methodology ›The read
Chambers, Nebraska (ZIP 68725), by its overall standing, sits in the top 29% healthiest ZIPs nationally (9,218th) and the top 39% of Nebraska (222nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Both sides of the picture show up plainly in this area's numbers: childcare is in the top 0.02% nationally, civic resides in the top 1.0% nationally, and modeled loneliness rests in the bottom 2.5% nationally. Modeled transportation noise lies in the bottom 6.2% nationally. Households without a vehicle sits at the national minimum, shared with about 16% of ZIPs. Modeled housing insecurity settles in the bottom 8.1% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site registers in the top 9.8% nationally. By contrast, walkability stands in the bottom 5.2% nationally, and modeled energy burden lands in the top 6.0% nationally. Home broadband subscription is in the bottom 8.0% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, childcare runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 68622, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 64%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 98%
8%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 51%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 53%
11%
Disability
healthier than 56%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 30%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 19%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 95%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 64%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 76%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 61%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 41%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 32%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 17%
16%
Disability
healthier than 29%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
68622
Nebraskashares a border
Score 56.62
Closest healthier
68734
Nebraskashares a border
Score 56.02
Similar health profile
68838
Nebraska98% similar profile
Score 53.31
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 | 30.6% | 27.4–34.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 37.4% | 33.6–41.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.4% | 10.3–12.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.0% | 8.0–10.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.5% | 7.5–9.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.0% | 6.8–9.4 |
| Depression among adults | 15.6% | 13.2–18.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.8% | 11.1–14.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.6% | 32.8–40.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.3% | 31.3–43.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 9.7% | 7.9–11.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.0% | 6.3–10.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.9% | 80.3–85.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.2% | 74.9–81.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.2% | 84.3–88.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 63.9% | 58.8–68.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 64.4% | 60.9–67.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.6% | 68.2–82.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.3% | 15.5–21.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.7% | 11.3–16.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 28.6% | 24.1–33.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.2% | 25.6–37.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.2% | 14.6–20.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 12.7% | 11.1–14.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.0% | 11.3–15.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.3% | 9.7–13.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.9% | 26.8–35.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.1–11.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.4% | 6.3–8.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.3% | 13.0–17.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.2–4.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.0% | 15.9–22.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.0–12.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 5.8–9.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.9–8.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 4.8–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 26.8% | 22.6–31.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.2% | 4.4–6.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NE median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.0% (2.6–16.7%) n=578 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 11.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 8.4% (1.6–20.4%) n=579 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.2% (1.5–11.9%) n=578 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 29.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 24.4% (12.1–39.7%) n=578 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 1.4% (0.0–5.8%) n=579 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.1% (0.0–7.6%) n=578 |
| Broadband subscription | 72.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (75.9–96.3%) n=578 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 12.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.5% (7.6–30.4%) n=578 |
| Homeownership rate | 85.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.5% (61.0–93.2%) n=578 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–4.6%) n=578 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.1% (0.0–8.3%) n=579 |
| Single-parent households | 55.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 57.2% (42.6–77.1%) n=577 |
| Population 65+ | 24.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.2% (11.4–34.7%) n=579 |
| Median age | 30.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.0–56.3) n=577 |
| Median household income | $54,583 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,386 ($53,469–$103,625) n=556 |
| Median home value | $119,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $168,400 ($90,000–$306,740) n=533 |
| Median gross rent | $800 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $850 ($610–$1,250) n=442 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NE median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.4 yr ± 1.38 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.1 yr (77.4–83.0) n=553 |
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 1.38 years of 81.4, 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