Skip to main content
ZipVitals

ZIP code

77705

in Beaumont, TexasPopulation 38,259

32.01/ 100

Ranked #30,311 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 5.5%)

Ranked #1,792 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (bottom 4.1%)

Ranked #28 of 30 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX ZIPs (bottom 6.7%)

Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.

Broad coverage across health domains

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)

24.5%

in the top 2.5% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST78th
US98th
Definition & 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

ST97th
US99th
Definition & 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 ›

Natural-disaster risk

in the top 0.8% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST99th
US99th
Definition & source ›

This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.

Full methodology ›

Self-care disability

7.8%

in the top 3.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US97th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.

Full methodology ›

Air-toxics cancer risk

47.5 per million

in the top 1.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST98th
US99th
Definition & 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 ›

Vision disability

10.3%

in the top 4.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST89th
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.

Full methodology ›

Arsenic in groundwater

0.99%

in the bottom 2.0% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST2nd
US2nd
Definition & source ›

The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.

A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.

Full methodology ›

Expected annual disaster loss

$1

in the top 2.1% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST96th
US98th
Definition & source ›

FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.

Full methodology ›

Colon-cancer screening

53.5%

in the bottom 3.8% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST13th
US4th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.

Full methodology ›

Fair or poor health

32.7%

in the top 4.6% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST90th
US95th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.

Full methodology ›

The read

ZIP 77705, one of several in Beaumont, Texas, overall, ranks in the bottom 5.5% nationally (30,311th) and the bottom 4.1% of Texas (1,792nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.

continue reading

This area's pressures are easy to read across the measures: modeled uninsured lands in the top 2.5% nationally, industrial-pollution burden lies in the top 0.8% nationally, and disaster risk stands in the top 0.8% nationally. Modeled self-care disability rests in the top 3.3% nationally, air-toxics cancer risk registers in the top 1.3% nationally, and vision disability resides in the top 4.3% nationally. Modeled expected annual loss settles in the top 2.1% nationally, and colon screening is in the bottom 3.8% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health sits in the top 4.6% nationally. On the brighter side, modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 2.0% nationally.

Measured against the nearby ZIPs, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. ZIP 77613, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.

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.

Compare within

Lifting this score

Healthcare Access

healthier than 77%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 31%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 24%

16%

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 2%

14%

Preventive Care

healthier than 3%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 2%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 33%

8%

Disability

healthier than 7%

7%

Climate / Disaster RiskPartial

healthier than 12%

5%

Lifting this score

Climate / Disaster RiskPartial

healthier than 67%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 71%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 18%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 15%

16%

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 3%

14%

Preventive Care

healthier than 12%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 1%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 24%

8%

Disability

healthier than 8%

7%

Lifting this score

Mental Health

healthier than 90%

8%

Climate / Disaster RiskPartial

healthier than 61%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 90%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 33%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

in the bottom 0.8%

16%

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 1%

14%

Preventive Care

in the bottom 0.00%

13%

Risk Behavior

in the bottom 0.00%

11%

Disability

healthier than 1%

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.

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
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Arthritis among adults24.6%21.7–27.8
High blood pressure among adults42.9%38.6–47.3
Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults5.1%4.6–5.6
Current asthma among adults10.7%9.4–12.0
Coronary heart disease among adults7.7%7.0–8.6
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults9.4%8.4–10.4
Depression among adults20.7%17.5–24.2
Diagnosed diabetes among adults18.0%15.9–20.2
High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened34.8%30.6–39.2
Obesity among adults46.5%38.2–54.9
Stroke among adults5.0%4.6–5.4
All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years23.2%20.0–26.5
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years24.5%21.7–27.4
Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure73.8%70.8–76.8
Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults73.1%69.0–77.1
Cholesterol screening among adults79.8%77.6–82.0
Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years53.5%48.8–58.0
Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults42.9%39.7–46.0
Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years71.2%63.9–77.5
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Binge drinking among adults16.3%13.3–19.6
Current cigarette smoking among adults22.6%19.9–25.4
No leisure-time physical activity among adults36.7%31.8–41.8
Short sleep duration among adults44.5%39.5–49.4
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults32.7%29.5–36.1
Frequent mental distress among adults20.5%18.4–22.9
Frequent physical distress among adults17.0%15.2–19.1
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Cognitive disability among adults20.3%18.2–22.5
Any disability among adults40.5%35.9–45.2
Hearing disability among adults7.3%6.5–8.2
Independent living disability among adults12.8%11.5–14.2
Mobility disability among adults20.5%18.3–23.0
Self-care disability among adults7.8%7.1–8.5
Vision disability among adults10.3%9.4–11.2
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)TX median (p10–p90)
Poverty rate23.5%10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,36412.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869
Uninsured 18–6432.5%9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,28622.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862
No HS diploma (25+)19.4%7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,50512.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881
Bachelor's or higher (25+)8.5%23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,50521.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881
Unemployment rate (16+)6.0%3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,2744.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865
Households without a vehicle8.8%3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,3223.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868
Broadband subscription88.5%89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,32289.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868
Housing cost burden (≥30% income)26.7%23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,32226.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868
Homeownership rate58.6%78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,32275.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868
Crowded housing (>1 per room)4.7%1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,3223.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868
Foreign-born population8.7%2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,5538.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886
Single-parent households43.6%53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,08748.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861
Population 65+10.5%19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,55316.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886
Median age37.8 yr42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,29238.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866
Median household income$54,633$72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318$69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737
Median home value$135,900$222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049$210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693
Median gross rent$930$1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670$1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
MeasureValueUS 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 ▾

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