Banana AnalyticsBANANAANALYTICS

County profile

Stark County, Illinois Community Health Profile

Environmental risk, disease burden, provider access, and SDOH scores for community health needs assessment and service line planning. Fused from EPA, CDC, CMS, and Census data into a single free view.

Opportunity Score

50Moderateout of 100

Env

64

+14 vs scale midpoint

Disease

53

+3 vs scale midpoint

Provider

37

−13 vs scale midpoint

SDOH

44

−6 vs scale midpoint

FIPS: 17175Population: 5,218Risk overview: No multiple-score screening flag

Specific health risk patterns

Stark County, IL: 1 specific risk pattern triggered

Each pattern below combines a specific environmental exposure with a population that is more vulnerable to that exposure. When both are present at meaningful levels in Stark County, the pattern triggers. These are the most concrete data points for documenting a significant health need in a Community Health Needs Assessment and for planning where services or community investment would land hardest.

Internally, we call these “Compound Signals.” Each is a versioned, weighted composite scored against the national distribution. The full formula and citations live on the methodology page.

Heat-Dialysis Vulnerability· 71Highmedium confidence

22 dialysis-dependent Medicare beneficiaries (14.97 per 1k).

Extreme heat exposure × Dialysis-dependent population

Defend this finding — full lineage to source data3 sources cited
Heat-Dialysis Vulnerability

Stark County: 71/100 (elevated above the 70th-percentile threshold)

Extreme heat × dialysis-dependent Medicare beneficiaries × chronic kidney disease prevalence. Anchored on Taiwan NHIRD findings of 5.3× CKD heat-hospitalization rate, 9× ESRD heat-stroke mortality.

0.40 × percentile(summer_max_temp) + 0.35 × percentile(dialysis_per_1k_medicare) + 0.25 × percentile(kidney_prevalence)

Methodology. Dialysis patients are uniquely heat-vulnerable: missed dialysis sessions during heat-related power loss or transport disruption cause electrolyte cascades within hours. The Taiwan NHIRD analysis (NHIRD = National Health Insurance Research Database) is the strongest population-level evidence we have for the magnitude of the effect.

Threshold. Elevated when score ≥ 70th national percentile across all US counties evaluated for this signal

Peer set. All US counties evaluated for the signal (~3,222, less coverage gaps)

Evidence base

  • · Lin Y-K et al. 'Extreme heat and ESRD heat-stroke mortality.' Taiwan NHIRD analysis.
  • · Remigio RV et al. 'Association of extreme heat events with hospital admission or mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease.' JAMA Network Open 2019.

Components (3)

Average summer maximum temperature40%

85.2 °F

Mean of the daily maximum temperature across the meteorological summer (June–August).

NOAA — Applied Climate Information System (ACIS) — RCC-ACIS

Vintage: Multi-year mean (2018–2023 typical) · Refresh: Monthly · Lag: Current year

Source page →

How it's measured. NOAA ACIS aggregates GHCN-Daily station observations to county-level summer (JJA) daily-max means using inverse-distance weighting. Smooths year-to-year noise; captures the structural heat profile.

Coverage. All 3,222 US counties

Dialysis-dependent Medicare beneficiaries per 1,00035%

15.0 per 1,000 Medicare benes

Rate of Medicare beneficiaries on at-home or in-center dialysis per 1,000 county Medicare beneficiaries.

HHS / ASPR — emPOWER Map — Medicare beneficiary DME data

Vintage: Current month · Refresh: Monthly · Lag: Same month

Source page →

How it's measured. HHS ASPR derives dialysis-dependent counts from Medicare claims for ESRD-related at-home or in-center service codes, aggregated to county. Reported per 1,000 county Medicare beneficiaries to normalize for size.

Caveat. emPOWER masks counts of 1–10 to the literal value 11 for beneficiary privacy. Per-1k rates derived from masked counts respect the same floor — a small county showing exactly 11 beneficiaries may have anywhere from 1 to 11 actual.

Coverage. All 3,222 US counties (subject to the 1–10 mask)

Chronic kidney disease prevalence25%

Percent of adults age 18+ self-reporting chronic kidney disease diagnosis.

CDC — PLACES — Local Data for Better Health

Vintage: PLACES 2022–2023 · Refresh: Monthly · Lag: 1–2 years

Source page →

How it's measured. PLACES small-area estimation from BRFSS self-report. CKD self-report substantially undercounts true prevalence (most CKD is asymptomatic until late stages).

Coverage. All 3,222 US counties

3 signals near threshold: Field Burden (68) · Outage Vulnerability (63) · Runoff Burden (55)

8 signals evaluated. See all signal methodologies →

Where Stark County stands

Fewer than two displayed scores reach the screening threshold

Stark County, Illinois has these published scores: Environmental Risk 64.1/100; Disease Burden 53.0/100; Provider Gap 37.0/100; SDOH Composite 43.7/100. None of the published scores reach the screening threshold of 70. Environmental Risk combines the available air, industrial, soil, heat and Superfund proximity indicators. Source coverage and reporting years matter when interpreting it; it does not measure an individual’s exposure. These weighted scores support screening and comparison; a score of 70 does not mean that 70% of counties have lower scores.

Methodology: when three or more of the four major health-risk areas (pollution, chronic disease, doctor access, social and economic conditions) have displayed scores of at least 70/100, we call the pattern “multi-pillar convergence.” The scoring approach and citations live on the methodology page.

Risk profile

Stark County compared to Illinois

Four scores on a 0–100 scale. Higher values indicate greater relative burden or need within each measure. The reference line at 50 marks the scale midpoint.

Stark County four-pillar profile20406080100Disease BurdenEnv RiskSDOH compositeProvider Gap

Environmental Risk (64) and Disease Burden (53) are above the scale midpoint and below the screening threshold of 70/100.

Provider Gap (37) and SDOH Composite (44) are at or below the scale midpoint of 50/100.

  • Stark County
  • Illinois state mean
  • Scale midpoint (50)
  • Signal threshold (70)

Current Conditions

Today's air quality, fires, and weather alerts

Live operational data for Stark County: real-time AQI from EPA AirNow, active fires from NIFC, and any National Weather Service advisories. Updated daily.

Current Air Quality
14Good
PM2.5: 2.5 µg/m³ · 2026-09-25
Source: EPA AirNow
Nearest Active Wildfire
No nearby active fires
0 fires within 100 km · 0 within 200 km
Source: NIFC active fire perimeters

Environmental Factors

Air, water, and exposure indicators

Top environmental indicators for Stark County with state and national benchmarks. Full profile covers 40+ metrics on the platform.

These indicators describe environmental conditions and potential exposure. They are not a complete record of environmental incidents in Stark County and do not establish the cause of an individual illness. Check each measure's source and reporting period in the data-source reference and review the scoring methods.

IndicatorStark CountyIL avgUS avg
EPA AQS / EJSCREEN
8.5
µg/m³
+0.0% vs IL
8.57.4
EPA AQS / EJSCREEN
62.3
ppb
-1.3% vs IL
63.157.1
Traffic Proximity
EJSCREEN
2,440
index
▼ -99% vs IL
275,878291,320
Superfund Proximity
EPA EJSCREEN
0.00
score
▼ -100% vs IL
0.130.16
EPA EJSCREEN
0.11
score
▼ -79% vs IL
0.533.39

PFAS in sampled water systems

EPA UCMR5 observations for systems associated with these counties through reported service ZIP codes. These results are displayed separately and do not contribute to the Environmental Risk score.

Loading sampled-system observations…

How Superfund proximity contributes

The 2024 EJSCREEN proximity indicator is 0.0000. It uses distances to proposed/final National Priorities List and Superfund Alternative Approach sites within 10 km. This is proximity context, not a measurement of heavy-metal exposure or illness.

The score without this component is 68.5; with it, 64.1. Its effective weight is 6.56%. The difference reflects methodology, not changed local conditions.

Component weights, scaling and limitations

Wildfire-Attributable Air Quality

Smoke PM2.5 the EPA doesn't count

Stanford peer-reviewed wildfire-attributable PM2.5 for Stark County. The EPA classifies wildfire smoke as "exceptional events" and excludes it from official AQS monitoring; Childs/Burke fills that gap with daily county-level data.

Annual mean wildfire PM2.5
0.53 µg/m³
6% of the 9 µg/m³ federal annual standard, on top of background air
Smoke days > 55 µg/m³
0
EPA “unhealthy for sensitive groups” threshold · Negligible
Smoke days > 100 µg/m³
0
EPA “unhealthy” threshold · acute exposure days

Source: Childs et al, Environmental Science & Technology 2022 (Harvard Dataverse 10.7910/DVN/DJVMTV). Latest year shipped: 2020. Burke et al, Nature 2023 estimate that the EPA AQS network undercounts wildfire-attributable PM2.5 by 10–30% in fire-affected counties. Coverage is CONUS only. Full methodology →

Outage Burden

When the grid goes dark

DOE/ORNL EAGLE-I customer-hours-out for Stark County in 2024. The fraction is population-normalized via the Maximum Customer Count denominator (Brelsford et al, Sci Data 2024) so it's directly comparable across counties of any size.

Customer-hours-out, 2024
0.21%
of all customer-hours in the year · Above routine
Peak customers out
1,740
in a single 15-minute interval · the year's worst quarter-hour
Intervals > 10,000 out
0
count of 15-minute slots with 10k+ customers out · surge events

Source: DOE/ORNL EAGLE-I (figshare 10.6084/m9.figshare.24237376). Latest year shipped: 2024. Coverage: 3,050 of 3,222 US counties; AK and some sparsely-served rural counties may have no data. Full methodology →

Severe Weather History

Recorded storm events and damages

NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database for Stark County, 2010–2026. Cumulative + last 5 years of recorded weather events with deaths, injuries, and damages.

Total events (2010–2026)
68
19 in the last 5 years
Deaths · injuries
0· 0
cumulative across all event types
Property + crop damage
$14.8M
cumulative reported damages
Events by type
Thunderstorm45
Flood14
Tornado9

Source: NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database (full history rollup). NOAA buckets ~50 raw event_type strings into 8 health-relevant categories. Coverage: 3,107 of 3,222 US counties; the absent are typically Alaska boroughs and territories where NOAA codes events as forecast zones rather than counties. Full methodology →

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Livestock density and federal-permit confidence

USDA Census of Agriculture (vintage 2022) animal-unit totals for Stark County, normalized to land area and ranked nationally. Animal Units (AU) follow the EPA federal definition under 40 CFR §122.23.

CAFO density rank
56thpercentile · Moderate
National rank of animal units per square mile.
Animal units per sq mi
70.3
Federal CAFO thresholds: 300 AU = “Medium”, 1,000 AU = “Large.” Total AU: 20,243 across 288 sq mi.
Dominant species
Hogs
Top contributor to the AU total. Other species may also be present.
Medium federal coverage. 20-50% of large CAFOs federally NPDES-permitted in this state (CA, MN, WI, IL, OH, NE, KS).

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture 2022 (head counts) + EPA 40 CFR §122.23 (animal-unit conversion). The CAFO composite deliberately omits NPDES facility counts because federal coverage averages ~32% nationally per EPA-IG and is heavily state-skewed — adding it as a numerator would systematically bias the index toward delegated states. Full methodology →

Pesticide Use

USGS Pesticide National Synthesis

Annual pesticide application rollup for Stark County from the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Most recent year on file: 2019. Mass figures use the EPest_HIGH estimate (the conservative-against-undercounting framing); EPest_LOW is also retained on the underlying data.

Density rank (2019)
99thpercentile · Extreme
National rank of kilograms applied per square mile.
Total mass applied
243.6K kg
845.6 kg/sq mi across 39 distinct compounds.
Top compounds by mass
  1. 1.GLYPHOSATE80.1K kg
  2. 2.ATRAZINE41.3K kg
  3. 3.METOLACHLOR & METOLACHLOR-S35.6K kg
  4. 4.METOLACHLOR-S33.3K kg
  5. 5.DICAMBA11.2K kg

Source: USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project (2019). USGS PNSP nationally; year 2019 is preliminary; 2018 unavailable; 2020+ not released. Update reliability medium-low. Full methodology →

Health Outcomes

Chronic disease prevalence

CDC PLACES model-based prevalence estimates for adults in Stark County. Full profile covers 15+ health outcomes plus mortality on the platform.

Stark County chronic disease prevalence vs. CDC PLACES national benchmarksCancer (any, excl. skin)7.110.2Frequent mental distress (14+ days)14.516.8COPD6.68.8Coronary heart disease6.07.9Diabetes11.412.7Depression21.122.3Stroke3.24.0Current asthma (adults)9.810.3510152025Prevalence (%)
Stark County adult disease prevalence vs. CDC PLACES national benchmarks, ranked by absolute divergence. Green connectors mark conditions where Stark County is below the benchmark; terracotta where above.National benchmarkStark County
ConditionStark CountyIL avgUS avg
Current Asthma
% of adults with current asthma
10.3%
-0.9% vs IL
10.4%10.6%
COPD
% of adults with diagnosed COPD
8.8%
▲ +4.7% vs IL
8.4%8.6%
Diabetes
% of adults with diagnosed diabetes
12.7%
+0.9% vs IL
12.6%13.7%
Coronary Heart Disease
% of adults with CHD
7.9%
▲ +6.5% vs IL
7.4%7.9%
Depression
% of adults ever diagnosed with depression
22.3%
+0.8% vs IL
22.1%23.1%
Frequent Mental Distress
% of adults with 14+ poor mental health days/month
16.8%
-1.2% vs IL
17.0%17.2%

Vulnerable Medicare Population

Who needs the grid to stay alive

Medicare beneficiaries in Stark County who depend on electricity for dialysis, oxygen, or other powered medical equipment. From the HHS emPOWER program, which CMS publishes monthly so emergency managers know who to find first when the power goes out.

PopulationCountPer 1,000 Medicare
Total Medicare beneficiaries
Denominator
1,470—
Electricity-dependent (any DME)
Ventilators, oxygen concentrators, IV pumps, motorized wheelchairs
97
66.0
▲ +21% vs IL
Dialysis-dependent
ESRD beneficiaries needing in-center or home dialysis
22
14.97
▲ +278% vs IL
Oxygen-dependent
Home oxygen concentrators (outage-vulnerable)
55
37.4
▲ +90% vs IL

Source: HHS emPOWER Map (ArcGIS county layer), September 2026. Counts of 1–10 are masked as “≤10” per HHS privacy rules; per-1,000 rates are derived and still respect the privacy floor. Full methodology →

Provider Supply

Specialty physician density per 100,000 residents

Active providers in Stark County from the CMS National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). Compared to the U.S. average for each specialty. Adjacency adjustment is applied separately in the Provider Gap pillar score.

SpecialtyStark CountyUS avg
Primary Care
Family medicine, internal medicine, general practice, pediatrics.
131.5
per 100k
+0.8% vs US
130.4
Cardiology
Cardiovascular disease, electrophysiology, interventional cardiology.
18.8
per 100k
▲ +56% vs US
12.1
Psychiatry
Mental health prescribers; complements behavioral health access.
18.8
per 100k
+0.6% vs US
18.7

Source: CMS National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). Counts reflect providers with a primary practice address in Stark County; specialty is taken from the provider's primary NUCC taxonomy code.

Pro analytical view

What drives this county's scores

The flagged signals and service-line opportunities for Stark County, plus the methodology decomposition behind each score. Visible to Pro, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise tiers.

Where to focus

Pro feature

Top flagged signals + service lines are a Pro feature

See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.

Score decomposition

Each named signal's component breakdown with weights. The bar length is the component's percentile rank; the parenthetical is its weight in the final blend.

Pro feature

Score decomposition is a Pro feature

See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.

Tract drill-down

Census tracts inside Stark County

Pro feature

Tract-level drill-down is a Pro feature

See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.

On the full platform

What else is available for Stark County

The page above is a subset. The free Community account unlocks the full single-county profile: every indicator, every data source, demographics, historical trends, and mortality data. Professional unlocks multi-county comparison, compound signal analysis, service line rankings, and consultant-ready PDF reports.

Full Environmental Profile

All 40+ environmental metrics including toxic releases, hazardous site proximity, PFAS detection, pesticide exposure, and climate stress indicators.

Service Line Opportunities

See how Stark County ranks for respiratory, oncology, cardiovascular, renal, endocrine, and behavioral health service line opportunity.

Multi-County Comparison

Compare Stark County side-by-side with neighboring counties across every dimension.

Trend Analysis

5-year sparklines for health outcomes, SDOH measures, and mortality rates so you can see where the county is heading, not just where it is today.

PDF Report Export

Generate a consultant-ready environmental health briefing for Stark County with methodology citations. Drops straight into a CHNA or grant application.

See pricing →

Nearby Counties

Counties bordering Stark County

Adjacent county profiles with their own scores and environmental health data. Source: Census Bureau County Adjacency File.

Data sources: EPA AQS, EPA EJSCREEN, EPA TRI, CDC PLACES, CDC WONDER, CMS NPPES, Census ACS, County Health Rankings, NOAA ACIS, NCI State Cancer Profiles. Every score on this page is derived from publicly available federal data, fused by the Banana Analytics pipeline.

Methodology: See the full scoring methodology (v1.2.0) for weights, sensitivity analysis, and validation against county-level mortality data.

Last refreshed: September 9, 2026