ZIP code
37402
in Chattanooga, TennesseePopulation 3,953
38.35/ 100
Ranked #27,820 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 13.3%)
Ranked #399 of 616 Tennessee ZIPs (bottom 35%)
Ranked #35 of 45 Chattanooga, TN-GA ZIPs (bottom 22%)
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.
Transit access
32 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Civic-institution access
3.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›Dental provider access
3.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices 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 ›Tooth loss
30.9%
in the top 2.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
5.0%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
2.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Households without a vehicle
37.2%
in the top 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.45 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Self-care disability
7.5%
in the top 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
40.6 per million
in the top 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›The read
In its overall standing, ZIP 37402, one of several in Chattanooga, Tennessee lands in the bottom 13.3% nationally (27,820th) and the bottom 35% of Tennessee (399th).
Several serious readings shape the profile and deserve first mention: modeled tooth loss lands in the top 2.7% nationally, homeownership lies in the bottom 1.1% nationally, and households without a vehicle stands in the top 1.7% nationally. Modeled self-care disability rests in the top 4.1% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk registers in the top 2.0% nationally. On the better side, transit resides in the top 0.2% nationally, and civic settles in the top 0.4% nationally. Dental providers is in the top 0.4% nationally, and recreation sits in the top 1.2% nationally. Grocery lands in the top 1.9% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, transit runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. On the overall standing, ZIP 37403, 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 Chattanooga, TN-GA 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
in the top 0.09%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 12%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 24%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 8%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 6%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.4%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 84%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 50%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 30%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 2%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 33%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 10%
11%
Disability
healthier than 12%
7%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 16%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 23%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 9%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 25%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
“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
37403
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 49.69
Closest healthier
37405
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 54.97
Similar health profile
40507
Kentucky97% similar profile
Score 43.84
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 | 30.7% | 28.0–33.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.6% | 41.4–47.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.9% | 5.3–6.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.8% | 11.3–14.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.3% | 7.4–9.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.5% | 10.0–13.1 |
| Depression among adults | 27.5% | 24.3–30.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 19.0% | 16.9–21.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.1% | 32.9–39.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 42.8% | 37.8–47.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 30.9% | 26.7–35.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.9% | 11.4–16.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.9% | 74.7–79.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.0% | 75.0–80.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.3% | 82.0–86.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.3% | 60.6–69.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 47.9% | 44.5–51.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.4% | 68.5–81.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.3% | 11.2–15.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 22.3% | 19.2–25.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 31.1% | 27.1–35.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 44.6% | 39.8–49.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 30.5% | 27.3–34.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 21.5% | 19.1–23.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.2–19.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 21.5% | 19.0–24.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 39.9% | 35.9–44.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.3–7.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 13.7% | 12.0–15.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.4% | 19.0–23.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.5–8.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–10.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 36.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.8% (5.1–26.1%) n=609 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.9–24.0%) n=615 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (4.2–19.5%) n=613 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 32.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.0% (10.0–42.6%) n=613 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.0% (0.4–9.6%) n=613 |
| Households without a vehicle | 37.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.3–10.1%) n=608 |
| Broadband subscription | 77.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.7% (76.0–94.9%) n=608 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 45.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.4% (11.8–33.6%) n=608 |
| Homeownership rate | 5.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.7% (53.4–91.5%) n=608 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–4.5%) n=608 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=617 |
| Single-parent households | 45.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 52.6% (39.1–68.7%) n=608 |
| Population 65+ | 24.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.5–27.9%) n=617 |
| Median age | 46.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.8–52.5) n=615 |
| Median household income | $24,214 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,577 ($42,745–$94,822) n=594 |
| Median home value | $268,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $215,100 ($120,900–$397,120) n=593 |
| Median gross rent | $615 | $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 unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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