ZIP code
35760
in New Hope, AlabamaPopulation 4,643
48.81/ 100
Ranked #17,908 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 44%)
Ranked #146 of 619 Alabama ZIPs (top 24%)
Ranked #22 of 31 Huntsville, AL ZIPs (bottom 29%)
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.
Fiber broadband
100%
in the top 1.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.19 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Grocery access
0.19 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›Floodplain exposure
34.9%
in the top 8.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
57.5%
in the top 9.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›The read
In its overall standing, New Hope, Alabama (ZIP 35760) lands in the bottom 44% nationally (17,908th) and the top 24% of Alabama (146th).
This area's measures are easy to read as a mixed set: fiber broadband lies in the top 1.9% nationally, elder services stands in the top 7.5% nationally, and grocery rests in the top 7.8% nationally. Modeled arsenic registers in the bottom 17% nationally, and lead in tap water resides in the bottom 20% nationally. Set against that, floodplain exposure settles in the top 8.0% nationally, and modeled pfas is in the top 9.1% nationally. Modeled humid heat sits in the top 17% nationally. Recreation lands at the national minimum, shared with about 35% of ZIPs. Modeled high cholesterol lies in the top 15% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. On the overall standing, ZIP 35747, 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 Huntsville, AL metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 71%
16%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 50%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 50%
11%
Disability
healthier than 41%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 40%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 35%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 14%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 75%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 89%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 66%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 80%
11%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 52%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 38%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 11%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 77%
14%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 40%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 20%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Disability
healthier than 27%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 10%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 13%
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
35747
Alabamashares a border
Score 51.40
Closest healthier
35748
Alabamashares a border
Score 56.03
Similar health profile
73049
Oklahoma98% similar profile
Score 48.60
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 | 32.3% | 29.2–35.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 40.7% | 37.0–44.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.4% | 6.6–8.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.3–9.6 |
| Depression among adults | 24.9% | 21.6–28.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.2% | 11.5–15.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.1% | 38.3–45.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 40.5% | 34.9–46.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 13.6% | 11.2–16.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.9% | 7.3–10.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.6% | 73.6–79.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.3% | 76.0–82.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.1% | 84.1–87.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.7% | 64.0–73.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 58.6% | 55.0–62.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.2% | 71.7–83.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.9% | 12.4–17.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 16.0% | 13.6–18.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.0% | 22.2–30.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.2% | 32.1–42.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.1% | 18.4–24.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.2% | 15.3–19.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.5% | 12.8–16.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.8% | 13.8–18.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 35.2% | 31.1–39.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.0% | 8.0–10.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.2% | 8.0–10.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.0% | 13.9–18.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.0% | 3.6–4.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.6% | 19.3–26.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.8% | 11.4–16.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.0–11.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.1% | 8.5–11.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.6–8.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.6% | 30.2–39.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 13.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.4% (5.1–31.1%) n=623 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.7% (5.2–25.2%) n=625 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 14.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 13.2% (3.6–23.0%) n=626 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 29.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 16.9% (6.9–38.8%) n=626 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–11.0%) n=622 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.0% (0.0–12.1%) n=622 |
| Broadband subscription | 88.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 84.9% (68.8–94.9%) n=622 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.3% (10.1–35.0%) n=622 |
| Homeownership rate | 83.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.3% (54.7–92.5%) n=622 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.3% (0.0–4.2%) n=622 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.3% (0.0–6.2%) n=628 |
| Single-parent households | 44.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (35.0–68.6%) n=617 |
| Population 65+ | 13.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.9–29.2%) n=628 |
| Median age | 35.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.3 yr (33.4–52.9) n=621 |
| Median household income | $71,622 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,896 ($37,738–$88,230) n=587 |
| Median home value | $172,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $160,950 ($87,300–$292,680) n=568 |
| Median gross rent | $1,089 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $856 ($625–$1,266) n=503 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 73.9 yr ± 0.86 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 74.7 yr (72.1–78.3) n=599 |
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 0.86 years of 73.9, 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