ZIP code
74130
in Tulsa, OklahomaPopulation 2,212
24.94/ 100
Ranked #31,481 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 1.9%)
Ranked #624 of 634 Oklahoma ZIPs (bottom 1.6%)
Ranked #85 of 88 Tulsa, OK ZIPs (bottom 3.5%)
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.
Tooth loss
31.7%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
8.1%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
11.0%
in the top 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
14.8%
in the top 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Mobility disability
26%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
22.9%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
33.4%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
20.7%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Stroke
6.0%
in the top 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, ZIP 74130, one of several in Tulsa, Oklahoma places in the bottom 1.9% nationally (31,481st) and the bottom 1.6% of Oklahoma (624th).
The measures that matter most for this area lead the way: modeled tooth loss sits in the top 2.3% nationally, and self-care disability lies in the top 2.6% nationally. Modeled vision disability rests in the top 3.2% nationally, and independent living disability resides in the top 2.9% nationally. Modeled mobility disability is in the top 2.4% nationally, cognitive disability lands in the top 2.6% nationally, and fair or poor health stands in the top 3.9% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff registers in the top 2.2% nationally, industrial-pollution burden settles in the top 2.8% nationally, and stroke sits in the top 4.1% nationally.
Beside the areas that surround it, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For readers new to these terms, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 74073, just across the boundary.
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 Tulsa, OK metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 41%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 1%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 8%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 4%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 2%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 3%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 76%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 45%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 15%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the bottom 0.7%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 10%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 4%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 7%
8%
Disability
healthier than 2%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 2%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 74%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 3%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 13%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 7%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 14%
8%
Disability
healthier than 3%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 1%
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
74073
Oklahomashares a border
Score 43.05
Closest healthier
74106
Oklahomashares a border
Score 27.13
Similar health profile
74901
Oklahoma99% similar profile
Score 21.92
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 | 29.9% | 27.6–32.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.8% | 44.0–49.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.5% | 5.9–7.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.7% | 11.5–14.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.1% | 9.2–11.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.1% | 10.9–13.6 |
| Depression among adults | 26.5% | 23.9–29.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 19.4% | 17.6–21.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.3% | 35.5–41.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 44.7% | 40.8–49.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.0% | 5.5–6.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 31.7% | 27.4–36.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 18.4% | 16.1–20.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.0% | 77.0–81.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.6% | 75.0–80.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 81.6% | 79.6–83.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.0% | 53.6–62.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 44.4% | 41.3–47.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.2% | 62.5–75.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 10.8% | 9.2–12.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 23.3% | 20.7–26.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 44.6% | 40.9–48.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 42.5% | 38.4–46.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 33.4% | 30.3–36.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 20.9% | 19.0–23.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.9% | 17.0–20.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 22.9% | 20.7–25.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 50.4% | 46.9–54.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.7–11.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 14.8% | 13.3–16.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 26.0% | 23.6–28.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 8.1% | 7.4–8.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 11.0% | 10.1–12.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 33.0% | 29.1–37.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 36.0% | 32.2–39.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 34.6% | 30.8–38.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 25.9% | 22.9–28.9 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 17.5% | 15.6–19.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 38.8% | 34.3–43.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 20.7% | 18.4–23.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OK median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 22.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 16.3% (6.5–26.1%) n=643 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 31.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 19.4% (9.5–30.7%) n=643 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 20.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.9% (4.8–18.9%) n=644 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 8.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.4% (9.0–38.4%) n=644 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 10.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.3% (0.4–8.8%) n=643 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.6% (0.0–9.0%) n=643 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 85.4% (70.2–95.0%) n=643 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.0% (9.5–31.0%) n=643 |
| Homeownership rate | 67.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.2% (56.5–91.0%) n=643 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–6.1%) n=643 |
| Foreign-born population | 11.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–9.3%) n=645 |
| Single-parent households | 43.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.7% (39.5–66.1%) n=640 |
| Population 65+ | 15.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 18.4% (11.9–29.5%) n=645 |
| Median age | 37.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.3 yr (33.1–52.0) n=642 |
| Median household income | $46,691 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,728 ($43,042–$88,542) n=616 |
| Median home value | $89,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $142,200 ($83,960–$248,900) n=615 |
| Median gross rent | $1,138 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $839 ($628–$1,136) n=546 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OK median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 69.6 yr ± 1.12 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.2 yr (73.6–81.3) n=638 |
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 1.12 years of 69.6, 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