ZIP code
37380
in New Hope, TennesseePopulation 6,688
34.99/ 100
Ranked #29,398 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 8.4%)
Ranked #501 of 616 Tennessee ZIPs (bottom 19%)
Ranked #41 of 45 Chattanooga, TN-GA ZIPs (bottom 8.9%)
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.
Fiber broadband
99.5%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST80thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 5.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Tree cover
77.7%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
12.4%
in the top 5.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
20.7%
in the top 6.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST80thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.16 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located 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 ›Mobility disability
22.2%
in the top 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST82ndUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
12.4%
in the top 9.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST82ndUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
27%
in the top 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.3%
in the bottom 9.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST19thUS9thDefinition & 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 ›The read
New Hope, Tennessee (ZIP 37380), overall, ranks in the bottom 8.4% nationally (29,398th) and the bottom 19% of Tennessee (501st).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: fiber broadband lies in the top 3.6% nationally, modeled tree cover stands in the top 5.8% nationally, and mental-health providers rests in the top 6.2% nationally. On the other side, modeled industrial-pollution burden registers in the top 5.2% nationally, unemployment resides in the top 5.9% nationally, and modeled cognitive disability settles in the top 6.9% nationally. Modeled mobility disability is in the top 9.0% nationally, and independent living disability sits in the top 9.3% nationally. Poverty lands in the top 9.0% nationally, and modeled fair or poor health lies in the top 10.2% 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. ZIP 30752, 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 Chattanooga, TN-GA metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 36%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 25%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 14%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 4%
8%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 39%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 33%
5%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 40%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 17%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 39%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 27%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 38%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 23%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 27%
8%
Disability
healthier than 19%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 30%
5%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 52%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 14%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 27%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 14%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 16%
8%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 23%
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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 74.0 ± 1.6 years. A median household income of $59,304 predicts 78.0 years — 4.0 years below.
Ranked #5,055 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
30752
Georgiashares a border
Score 48.13
Closest healthier
37340
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 37.58
Similar health profile
37854
Tennessee100% similar profile
Score 35.46
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 | 37.4% | 33.6–41.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 45.7% | 41.2–50.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.5% | 8.7–10.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.9% | 10.5–13.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.6–10.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.8% | 11.3–14.3 |
| Depression among adults | 30.5% | 26.3–34.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.4% | 15.2–19.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.9% | 37.4–46.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.8% | 33.7–50.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.0% | 4.6–5.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 22.9% | 18.9–27.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.2% | 11.2–15.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.4% | 76.5–82.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.8% | 75.2–82.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.0% | 84.1–87.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.3% | 56.8–67.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 50.9% | 47.0–54.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.3% | 63.6–79.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.6% | 10.2–15.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 22.9% | 19.8–25.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 32.7% | 27.8–37.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.5% | 33.6–47.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 29.1% | 25.6–32.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 20.8% | 18.5–23.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 19.0% | 16.7–21.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.7% | 18.4–23.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 43.4% | 38.4–48.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.4% | 11.0–13.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 22.2% | 19.5–25.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.7–8.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 27.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.8% (5.1–26.1%) n=609 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 14.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.9–24.0%) n=615 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 19.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (4.2–19.5%) n=613 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.0% (10.0–42.6%) n=613 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 12.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.0% (0.4–9.6%) n=613 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.3–10.1%) n=608 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.7% (76.0–94.9%) n=608 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.4% (11.8–33.6%) n=608 |
| Homeownership rate | 71.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.7% (53.4–91.5%) n=608 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–4.5%) n=608 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=617 |
| Single-parent households | 51.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 52.6% (39.1–68.7%) n=608 |
| Population 65+ | 17.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.5–27.9%) n=617 |
| Median age | 39.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.8–52.5) n=615 |
| Median household income | $59,304 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,577 ($42,745–$94,822) n=594 |
| Median home value | $194,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $215,100 ($120,900–$397,120) n=593 |
| Median gross rent | $889 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $908 ($659–$1,523) n=516 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 74.0 yr ± 0.82 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 75.1 yr (72.6–78.1) n=587 |
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 0.82 years of 74.0, 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