ZIP code
77701
in Beaumont, TexasPopulation 12,381
35.29/ 100
Ranked #29,282 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 8.7%)
Ranked #1,720 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (bottom 8.0%)
Ranked #26 of 30 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX ZIPs (bottom 13.4%)
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.
Uninsured (under 65)
25.1%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST79thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Physician access
5.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
47 per million
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.76 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies 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 ›Vision disability
10.0%
in the top 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Short sleep
44.8%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.38 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Fair or poor health
32.6%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
54.4%
in the bottom 4.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST16thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, ZIP 77701, one of several in Beaumont, Texas lands in the bottom 8.7% nationally (29,282nd) and the bottom 8.0% of Texas (1,720th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Several serious readings shape the profile and deserve first mention: modeled uninsured resides in the top 2.2% nationally, industrial-pollution burden settles in the top 0.8% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk is in the top 1.3% nationally. Modeled vision disability sits in the top 4.9% nationally, short sleep lands in the top 3.4% nationally, and fair or poor health lies in the top 4.7% nationally. Modeled colon screening stands in the bottom 4.5% nationally. On the better side, physicians rests in the top 1.0% nationally, and pharmacy registers in the top 2.0% nationally. Grocery resides in the top 2.6% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. On the overall standing, ZIP 77662, 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 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 91%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 54%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 28%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 4%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 11%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 91%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 52%
16%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 15%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 39%
8%
Disability
healthier than 10%
7%
Lifting this score
Mental Health
in the top 0.00%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 24%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 32%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Preventive Care
in the bottom 0.00%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the bottom 0.00%
11%
Disability
healthier than 3%
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
3 of our published findings list 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.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 72.1 ± 1.5 years. A median household income of $49,181 predicts 77.3 years — 5.2 years below.
Ranked #5,585 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Below its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 72.1 ± 1.5 years. The 47 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 76.8 years — 4.7 years below them.
Ranked #3,294 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 47.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 72.1 ± 1.5 years.
Ranked #252 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
77662
Texasshares a border
Score 41.10
Closest healthier
77702
Texasshares a border
Score 47.08
Similar health profile
77091
Texas99% similar profile
Score 34.10
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 | 25.4% | 22.5–28.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.7% | 38.5–47.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.1–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.2% | 6.5–8.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.3% | 7.4–9.2 |
| Depression among adults | 19.9% | 16.8–23.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 18.9% | 16.7–21.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.2% | 31.0–39.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 45.6% | 37.3–54.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.2% | 4.8–5.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 26.4% | 22.6–30.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 25.1% | 22.4–27.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.0% | 74.3–79.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 75.3% | 71.4–78.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.6% | 80.5–84.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 54.4% | 49.5–59.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 42.2% | 38.9–45.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.9% | 62.6–76.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 11.5–17.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 18.5% | 16.2–21.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 38.1% | 33.0–43.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 44.8% | 39.7–49.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 32.6% | 29.4–36.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.9% | 17.8–22.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.8% | 15.0–18.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 19.6% | 17.6–21.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.6% | 36.1–45.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.8–7.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.5% | 11.3–13.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.7% | 19.4–24.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.6–7.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 10.0% | 9.2–10.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 25.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 48.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 27.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 7.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 13.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 53.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 22.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 37.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 13.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 35.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $49,181 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $84,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $981 | $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 | 72.1 yr ± 0.79 | 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 0.79 years of 72.1, 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