ZIP code
79714
in Andrews, TexasPopulation 18,610
45.45/ 100
Ranked #21,937 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 32%)
Ranked #917 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 49%)
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.
Arsenic in groundwater
89.4%
in the top 0.01% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Uninsured (under 65)
25.4%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST80thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
160 µg/L
in the top 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Nitrate in drinking water
19.8%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS98thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of this area’s domestic-well groundwater at or above the federal nitrate limit of 10 milligrams 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
55.6%
in the bottom 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST19thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
73.5 days/year
in the top 5.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST43rdUS94thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
0.00%
in the bottom 9.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST11thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, Andrews, Texas (ZIP 79714) lands in the bottom 32% nationally (21,937th) and the top 49% of Texas (917th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Reading across the data, the real pressures come first: modeled arsenic registers in the top 0.01% nationally, modeled uninsured resides in the top 2.1% nationally, and lithium in drinking water settles in the top 0.9% nationally. Modeled nitrate is in the top 2.2% nationally, colon screening sits in the bottom 5.6% nationally, and extreme heat lands in the top 5.6% nationally. Modeled tree cover lies in the bottom 9.6% nationally, and disaster risk stands in the top 10.9% nationally. More encouragingly, distance to an emergency room rests at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Lead in tap water registers in the bottom 10.1% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, arsenic runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Nitrate is a groundwater compound from fertilizer, manure, and sewage, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. On the overall standing, ZIP 88240, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 58%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 36%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 4%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 20%
11%
Disability
healthier than 38%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 9%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 28%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 70%
21%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 31%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 40%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 28%
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 75.9 ± 1.7 years. A median household income of $72,242 predicts 78.8 years — 2.9 years below.
Ranked #3,969 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
79331
Texasshares a border
Score 37.73
Closest healthier
88240
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 46.33
Similar health profile
77365
Texas98% similar profile
Score 47.27
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 | 21.3% | 18.6–24.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.3% | 28.2–36.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.6% | 8.5–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.3% | 5.6–7.1 |
| Depression among adults | 22.2% | 18.8–26.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.8% | 11.1–14.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.4% | 30.2–38.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.2% | 28.0–45.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.2% | 2.9–3.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 16.0% | 13.2–19.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 25.4% | 22.4–28.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.4% | 69.2–75.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 71.0% | 66.8–75.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.3% | 80.2–84.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 55.6% | 50.1–61.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 50.0% | 46.3–53.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.9% | 60.9–77.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.5% | 14.4–21.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.5% | 12.4–16.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.9% | 26.0–36.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.3% | 31.9–47.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 25.4% | 22.2–28.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.2% | 16.1–20.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.8% | 13.0–16.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.5% | 15.5–19.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.3% | 29.7–39.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.2–10.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.3–17.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.5% | 4.1–5.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.3–7.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 15.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 26.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 23.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 17.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 13.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 44.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 9.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 33.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $72,242 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $195,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $1,305 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.9 yr ± 0.85 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.2 yr (75.1–81.7) n=1,772 |
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 0.85 years of 75.9, 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