ZIP code
79766
in Odessa, TexasPopulation 11,041
45.27/ 100
Ranked #22,114 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 31%)
Ranked #938 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (bottom 50%)
Too few scored ZIPs in the Odessa, TX metro area to rank within it.
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.
Uninsured (under 65)
34.3%
in the top 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
48.4%
in the bottom 1.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST4thUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
61.6 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Crowded housing
13.7%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
85.4 days/year
in the top 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST58thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
488 units
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
0.3 mi
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST3rdUS5thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
17.6%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
29.6%
in the bottom 9.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST11thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Radon
0.8 pCi/L
in the bottom 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST46thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, ZIP 79766, one of several in Odessa, Texas lands in the bottom 31% nationally (22,114th) and the bottom 50% of Texas (938th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Where this area bears down hardest, the measures speak first: modeled uninsured lands in the top 0.6% nationally, and colon screening registers in the bottom 1.5% nationally. Fatal road crashes sits in the top 2.1% nationally, and crowded housing rests in the top 2.6% nationally. Modeled extreme heat is in the top 4.2% nationally, distance to a Superfund site stands in the bottom 4.7% nationally, and modeled arsenic settles in the top 7.9% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health lies in the top 10.4% nationally, and tree cover resides in the bottom 10.9% nationally. On the encouraging side, subsidized affordable housing lands in the top 4.6% nationally.
To translate a couple of terms, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 79706, 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 Odessa, TX metro area.
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 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 77%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 71%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 53%
8%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
in the bottom 1.0%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 9%
11%
Disability
healthier than 31%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 4%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 76%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 78%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 52%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 56%
8%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 3%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 13%
11%
Disability
healthier than 38%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 18%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.00%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Mental Health
in the top 0.00%
8%
Disability
healthier than 62%
7%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 58%
14%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
in the bottom 0.00%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 1%
11%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the bottom 0.00%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
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
79706
Texasshares a border
Score 51.35
Closest healthier
79761
Texasshares a border
Score 46.16
Similar health profile
75180
Texas99% similar profile
Score 46.16
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 | 18.1% | 15.9–20.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 29.6% | 26.2–33.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.1% | 3.7–4.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.1% | 8.1–10.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.2% | 4.6–5.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–5.9 |
| Depression among adults | 20.5% | 17.7–23.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.3% | 11.7–15.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.3% | 29.6–37.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 40.4% | 33.4–48.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.6–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 19.0% | 16.2–22.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 34.3% | 30.1–38.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.0% | 65.8–72.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 66.7% | 62.3–70.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 79.8% | 77.4–82.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 48.4% | 43.9–52.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 45.5% | 42.3–48.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.1% | 61.8–75.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.7% | 15.7–22.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.2% | 13.0–17.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 34.7% | 29.7–39.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.2% | 33.7–44.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 29.0% | 25.7–32.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.3% | 16.3–20.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.6–17.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 19.1% | 16.9–21.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 35.4% | 31.1–39.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.5–6.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.4–10.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.2–17.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.3–5.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.1% | 7.2–9.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 37.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 35.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 13.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 21.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 43.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 7.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 31.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $74,407 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $140,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $1,158 | $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 | 78.2 yr ± 1.59 | 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 1.59 years of 78.2, 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