ZIP code
03224
in Canterbury, New HampshirePopulation 2,392
64.05/ 100
Ranked #2,420 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 7.6%)
Ranked #36 of 243 New Hampshire ZIPs (top 14.9%)
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.
Mammography
84.7%
in the top 0.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.42 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Median household income
$138,125
in the top 5.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
50.2 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
27.5%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST17thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.5%
in the bottom 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST20thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.8%
in the bottom 5.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST25thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
20.2%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Housing insecurity
6.9%
in the bottom 6.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST30thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
4.5%
in the bottom 7.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST19thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, Canterbury, New Hampshire (ZIP 03224) ranks in the top 7.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,420th) and the top 14.9% of New Hampshire (36th).
The signals balance out across the profile, strengths against concerns: modeled mammography stands in the top 0.8% nationally, and grocery lies in the top 2.2% nationally. Household income lands in the top 5.4% nationally, and modeled loneliness sits in the bottom 5.0% nationally. Modeled food insecurity is in the bottom 5.4% nationally, transportation settles in the bottom 5.9% nationally, and housing insecurity resides in the bottom 6.7% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff registers in the bottom 7.6% nationally. Set against that, fatal road crashes rests in the top 3.8% nationally, and modeled arsenic stands in the top 6.3% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Close by, ZIP 03229, about 4.4 miles away, ranks 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 73%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 83%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 96%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 76%
8%
Disability
healthier than 86%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 55%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 81%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 89%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 81%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 66%
8%
Disability
healthier than 74%
7%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 49%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 36%
14%
“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
03237
New Hampshireshares a border
Score 60.82
Closest healthier
03229
New Hampshireabout 4.4 mi away
Score 64.79
Similar health profile
48380
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 63.84
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 | 29.7% | 26.9–32.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.8% | 29.6–36.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.8% | 9.8–11.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.9% | 9.7–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.0% | 5.1–7.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.1% | 4.8–7.6 |
| Depression among adults | 22.7% | 19.8–25.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.2% | 7.8–10.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.0% | 31.8–38.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.4% | 27.7–37.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.6–3.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.1% | 6.0–8.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.8% | 4.2–7.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.0% | 74.9–80.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.9% | 78.1–83.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.5% | 88.5–92.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.6% | 69.4–75.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.7% | 69.1–74.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 84.7% | 81.0–87.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.5% | 12.3–17.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.3% | 7.0–12.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.0% | 14.6–22.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.3% | 28.7–36.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.3% | 10.8–16.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.0% | 12.1–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.3% | 9.6–13.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.9% | 9.0–13.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 25.5% | 21.7–29.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.1–8.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.0–7.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.5% | 9.3–14.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.3–3.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.5% | 2.9–4.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.9% | 16.8–23.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.5% | 5.5–10.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 3.7–7.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.9% | 5.3–8.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.8% | 3.8–5.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.5% | 23.9–31.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.5% | 3.6–5.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 5.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 6.7% (2.0–13.3%) n=243 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.1% (2.2–14.5%) n=242 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 4.5% (1.3–9.8%) n=243 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 50.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 38.8% (21.4–60.3%) n=243 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.8% (0.0–6.0%) n=243 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.5% (0.0–8.4%) n=243 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 92.9% (85.7–99.0%) n=243 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 18.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 27.1% (17.2–36.4%) n=243 |
| Homeownership rate | 93.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 86.0% (62.6–96.9%) n=243 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–3.1%) n=243 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 3.1% (0.5–7.1%) n=243 |
| Single-parent households | 64.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 60.9% (46.9–76.5%) n=243 |
| Population 65+ | 22.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.1% (15.1–37.1%) n=243 |
| Median age | 48.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 47.1 yr (38.4–58.4) n=243 |
| Median household income | $138,125 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $98,684 ($67,733–$147,723) n=235 |
| Median home value | $438,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $371,500 ($252,560–$570,440) n=237 |
| Median gross rent | $2,136 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,360 ($1,037–$1,893) n=197 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NH median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 79.6 yr ± 1.62 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 81.2 yr (78.0–85.7) n=242 |
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 1.62 years of 79.6, 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