ZIP code
76685
in Satin, TexasPopulation 28
42.90/ 100
Ranked #24,468 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 24%)
Ranked #1,203 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (bottom 36%)
Ranked #22 of 36 Waco, TX ZIPs (bottom 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.
Lithium in drinking water
140 µg/L
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Uninsured (under 65)
21.3%
in the top 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST72ndUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
94.2 days/year
in the top 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
6.3%
in the top 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Poverty rate
42.9%
in the top 2.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFAS — man-made “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down — were 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 ›The read
In its overall standing, Satin, Texas (ZIP 76685) lands in the bottom 24% nationally (24,468th) and the bottom 36% of Texas (1,203rd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Reading across the data, the real pressures come first: lithium in drinking water registers in the top 1.1% nationally, modeled uninsured resides in the top 3.7% nationally, and modeled extreme heat settles in the top 1.9% nationally. Slow internet speeds is in the top 2.0% nationally, poverty sits in the top 2.5% nationally, and PFAS in drinking water lands at the national maximum. More encouragingly, housing-cost burden lies at the national minimum, and modeled transportation noise stands at the national minimum. Homeownership rests at the national maximum, and home broadband subscription registers at the national maximum.
Against the wider neighborhood, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. PFAS in drinking water is the family of man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. Extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. On the overall standing, ZIP 76655, 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 Waco, TX metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Mental Health
healthier than 73%
8%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 34%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 29%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 21%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Disability
healthier than 27%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the bottom 0.2%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 62%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 49%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 21%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 20%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 26%
14%
Disability
healthier than 32%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 2%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Mental Health
healthier than 96%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 24%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 34%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 20%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 32%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 35%
11%
Disability
healthier than 34%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the bottom 0.00%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 25%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
76632
Texasshares a border
Score 42.65
Closest healthier
76655
Texasshares a border
Score 53.02
Similar health profile
78008
Texas99% similar profile
Score 39.42
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 | 27.5% | 24.1–31.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.1% | 37.7–46.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.1% | 6.3–7.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.1% | 7.0–9.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.6% | 6.2–9.1 |
| Depression among adults | 19.7% | 16.6–23.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.7% | 15.2–20.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.0% | 34.7–43.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.7% | 30.9–48.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.6% | 4.0–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 21.2% | 17.4–24.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 21.3% | 17.0–26.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.7% | 77.1–82.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.9% | 73.2–80.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.4% | 84.3–88.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.3% | 62.1–72.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 52.1% | 48.1–55.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.9% | 65.1–81.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 11.4–17.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.4% | 11.5–17.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.1% | 27.3–39.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.4% | 32.2–46.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.7% | 22.5–31.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.6% | 14.5–18.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.0–17.6 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.6% | 13.4–18.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.5% | 31.3–42.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 6.9–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.0–11.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.0% | 15.9–22.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.4–6.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.6% | 6.4–8.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 42.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | — | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 32.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 25.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | — | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 100.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 0.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 100.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 100.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 75.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | — | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 at birth | 76.0 yr ± 2.03 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.2 yr (75.1–81.7) n=1,772 |
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 2.03 years of 76.0, 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