ZIP code
38369
in Rutherford, TennesseePopulation 1,543
39.09/ 100
Ranked #27,331 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 14.8%)
Ranked #369 of 616 Tennessee ZIPs (bottom 40%)
Ranked #18 of 25 Jackson, TN ZIPs (bottom 28%)
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%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.54 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies 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 ›Housing-cost burden
11.8%
in the bottom 12.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST10thUS12thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
12.2%
in the bottom 14.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS14thDefinition & 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 ›Tree cover
1.3%
in the bottom 25% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST7thUS25thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
4.2%
in the top 24% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS76thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Rutherford, Tennessee (ZIP 38369) lands in the bottom 14.8% nationally (27,331st) and the bottom 40% of Tennessee (369th).
A number of measures pull each way for this area: fiber broadband registers at the national maximum, and pharmacy rests in the top 4.4% nationally. Housing-cost burden stands in the bottom 12.0% nationally, and modeled pfas lies in the bottom 14.5% nationally. Modeled binge drinking lands in the bottom 14.7% nationally. Set against that, modeled cognitive disability sits in the top 13.5% nationally, and mobility disability is in the top 15% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility settles at the national minimum, shared with about 31% of ZIPs. Modeled high blood pressure resides in the top 15% nationally. Recreation registers at the national minimum, shared with about 35% of ZIPs.
A note on the terms: 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. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 38316, just across the boundary, ranks better 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 Jackson, TN metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 87%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 14%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 24%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 30%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 8%
8%
Disability
healthier than 17%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 23%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 94%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 66%
8%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 59%
11%
Disability
healthier than 40%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 36%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 13%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 12%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 19%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 92%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 63%
11%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 42%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 29%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 33%
16%
Disability
healthier than 38%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 38%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 25%
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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 87.5; chronic-disease standing 13.7 — 74 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #828 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
38230
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 38.33
Closest healthier
38316
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 39.28
Similar health profile
38061
Tennessee100% similar profile
Score 35.51
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 | 37.1% | 33.3–40.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.0% | 39.5–48.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 8.9–10.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.0–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.9% | 7.9–10.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.3% | 9.8–13.0 |
| Depression among adults | 28.6% | 24.7–32.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.7% | 13.6–17.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.3% | 37.8–46.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.7% | 31.3–45.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.7% | 16.9–24.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.8% | 9.7–14.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.7% | 75.7–81.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.0% | 75.4–82.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.9% | 85.0–88.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.3% | 56.7–67.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 54.5% | 50.6–58.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 71.6% | 63.0–79.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.1% | 10.7–15.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 20.5% | 17.5–23.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.5% | 25.6–35.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.8% | 31.1–45.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.0% | 22.5–29.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.7% | 17.4–22.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.1–19.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 19.1% | 16.7–21.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.6% | 35.7–45.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.5–10.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.1% | 9.7–12.7 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.5% | 17.7–23.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.8–7.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.8% (5.1–26.1%) n=609 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 18.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.9–24.0%) n=615 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 16.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (4.2–19.5%) n=613 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.0% (10.0–42.6%) n=613 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.0% (0.4–9.6%) n=613 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.3–10.1%) n=608 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.7% (76.0–94.9%) n=608 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 11.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.4% (11.8–33.6%) n=608 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.7% (53.4–91.5%) n=608 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–4.5%) n=608 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=617 |
| Single-parent households | 51.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 52.6% (39.1–68.7%) n=608 |
| Population 65+ | 29.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.5–27.9%) n=617 |
| Median age | 46.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.8–52.5) n=615 |
| Median household income | $50,417 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,577 ($42,745–$94,822) n=594 |
| Median home value | $105,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $215,100 ($120,900–$397,120) n=593 |
| Median gross rent | $691 | $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 | 75.0 yr ± 0.79 | 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 0.79 years of 75.0, 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