ZIP code
84739
in Joseph, UtahPopulation 592
49.95/ 100
Ranked #16,322 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 49%)
Ranked #229 of 284 Utah ZIPs (bottom 19%)
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.
Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Binge drinking
9.9%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST28thUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
119.4 mi
in the top 2.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST81stUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
10 per million
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST24thUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Crowded housing
9.3%
in the top 5.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
17.5 mi
in the top 6.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
20%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Radon
3 pCi/L
in the top 10.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
11.6 days/year
in the bottom 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST59thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
8.8%
in the top 12.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS87thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›The read
Joseph, Utah (ZIP 84739), on the composite measure, lands in the bottom 49% nationally (16,322nd) and the bottom 19% of Utah (229th).
Where this area is stretched, the data is unambiguous: crowded housing registers in the top 5.2% nationally, modeled arsenic lands in the top 6.5% nationally, and modeled radon resides in the top 10.4% nationally. Fiber broadband lies at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Better still, modeled industrial-pollution burden settles in the bottom 0.6% nationally, and binge drinking stands in the bottom 1.2% nationally. Distance to a Superfund site is in the top 2.8% nationally, and modeled air-toxics cancer risk rests in the bottom 2.8% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility sits in the top 6.3% nationally, and modeled humid heat registers in the bottom 8.6% nationally.
In everyday language, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. A healthier neighbor overall sits at ZIP 84724, 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 73%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 90%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 30%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 31%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 27%
8%
Disability
healthier than 33%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 18%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 73%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 73%
13%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 49%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 4%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 15%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 39%
11%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 28%
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
84724
Utahshares a border
Score 52.09
Closest healthier
84754
Utahshares a border
Score 51.76
Similar health profile
84772
Utah97% similar profile
Score 48.88
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 | 33.5% | 30.2–37.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.6% | 34.7–42.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.1% | 10.0–12.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.1–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.6% | 7.6–9.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.0–9.8 |
| Depression among adults | 26.7% | 23.2–30.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.1% | 11.3–15.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.9% | 34.7–43.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.1% | 30.6–43.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 16.1% | 13.2–19.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.2% | 7.2–11.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.2% | 73.1–79.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 75.9% | 72.3–79.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.3% | 81.1–85.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.8% | 61.7–71.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 68.0% | 64.6–71.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.6% | 60.9–77.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 9.9% | 8.1–12.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.0% | 8.9–13.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.3% | 19.0–27.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.6% | 28.9–40.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 20.8% | 17.5–24.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.0% | 14.8–19.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.3% | 14.1–18.6 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.1% | 13.8–18.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.2% | 31.3–41.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–12.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.9% | 7.6–10.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.6% | 14.1–19.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.6–4.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.4% | 18.1–25.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.6% | 10.1–15.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 5.7–9.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.4–11.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.9–8.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.9% | 27.3–36.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.6% | 5.5–7.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | UT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 12.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 7.0% (1.0–21.5%) n=283 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 10.1% (2.9–25.0%) n=281 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.4% (0.0–15.0%) n=284 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 18.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 28.5% (10.8–53.1%) n=284 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 8.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.7%) n=281 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.0% (0.0–7.7%) n=283 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.3% (78.4–98.3%) n=283 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 11.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.1% (7.6–35.3%) n=283 |
| Homeownership rate | 86.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 81.5% (52.0–96.8%) n=283 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 9.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.0% (0.0–7.6%) n=283 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 3.2% (0.0–11.8%) n=284 |
| Single-parent households | 57.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 49.8% (37.3–72.7%) n=281 |
| Population 65+ | 15.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 15.3% (7.9–29.1%) n=284 |
| Median age | 33.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 35.9 yr (27.6–52.1) n=283 |
| Median household income | $85,313 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $82,344 ($52,938–$126,884) n=260 |
| Median home value | $238,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $402,500 ($229,220–$651,780) n=259 |
| Median gross rent | $430 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,321 ($834–$1,911) n=198 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | UT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 78.4 yr ± 1.47 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.7 yr (77.0–85.3) n=277 |
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 1.47 years of 78.4, 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