ZIP code
76109
in Fort Worth, TexasPopulation 26,006
61.29/ 100
Ranked #3,946 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 12.4%)
Ranked #121 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 6.5%)
Ranked #40 of 265 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX ZIPs (top 15%)
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.
Dental provider access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Dry extreme heat
90.3 days/year
in the top 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.67 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Mental-health provider access
0.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
26%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
30.5%
in the bottom 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.24 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Physician access
2.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
4.2%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Stroke
2.2%
in the bottom 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, ZIP 76109, one of several in Fort Worth, Texas comes out in the top 12.4% healthiest ZIPs nationally (3,946th) and the top 6.5% of Texas (121st).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: dental providers registers in the top 2.5% nationally, outpatient stands in the top 4.3% nationally, and mental-health providers lands in the top 4.3% nationally. Modeled high blood pressure is in the bottom 3.6% nationally, modeled high cholesterol resides in the bottom 4.0% nationally, and grocery rests in the top 5.4% nationally. Physicians lies in the top 5.5% nationally, and modeled coronary heart disease sits in the bottom 4.1% nationally. Modeled stroke settles in the bottom 3.5% nationally. Set against that, modeled extreme heat registers in the top 2.9% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. Locally, no neighbor ranks healthier overall than this ZIP.
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 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 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 96%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 80%
11%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 39%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 13%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 93%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 26%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 40%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 89%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 84%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Disability
healthier than 85%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 42%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 32%
14%
“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 42.2; chronic-disease standing 96.1 (top 10%) — 54 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #14,792 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
76107
Texasshares a border
Score 55.76
Similar health profile
78704
Texas99% similar profile
Score 64.40
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 | 19.4% | 17.5–21.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 26.0% | 23.5–28.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.1% | 6.5–7.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.5 |
| Depression among adults | 24.6% | 21.6–27.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 7.7% | 6.8–8.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.5% | 27.6–33.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 26.9% | 23.2–30.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.2% | 2.0–2.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.3% | 6.0–8.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.0% | 7.7–10.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 71.4% | 68.6–73.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 72.6% | 69.3–75.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.8% | 83.1–86.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.7% | 64.2–71.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.5% | 62.9–68.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.9% | 74.8–84.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.8% | 16.2–21.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.9% | 6.7–9.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.4% | 15.9–21.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.8% | 31.5–38.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.4% | 11.8–15.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.5% | 14.7–18.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–10.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.3% | 10.9–13.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 24.5% | 21.6–27.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.3–6.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.0–10.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.2% | 2.0–2.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.3% | 3.0–3.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 12.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 10.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 70.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 38.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 52.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 8.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 47.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 15.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 32.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $100,507 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $630,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $1,770 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX 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