ZIP code
79835
in Canutillo, TexasPopulation 11,440
46.65/ 100
Ranked #20,574 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 36%)
Ranked #790 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 42%)
Ranked #15 of 32 El Paso, TX ZIPs (top 47%)
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)
32.6%
in the top 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
53.7%
in the bottom 3.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST14thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
9.8%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
0.00%
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
20.2%
in the top 6.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS94thDefinition & 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 ›PFAS in drinking water
63.8%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Fair or poor health
29.8%
in the top 8.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST83rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
53.9 days/year
in the top 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST25thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Crowded housing
6.9%
in the top 8.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
59 µg/L
in the top 8.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & 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 ›The read
On balance, and by the composite measure, Canutillo, Texas (ZIP 79835) ranks in the bottom 36% nationally (20,574th) and the top 42% of Texas (790th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The burdens that read clearest in the data come first: modeled uninsured registers in the top 0.7% nationally, and colon screening sits in the bottom 3.9% nationally. Modeled vision disability rests in the top 5.3% nationally, and tree cover is at the national minimum. Modeled arsenic stands in the top 6.4% nationally, pfas settles in the top 6.5% nationally, and fair or poor health lies in the top 8.7% nationally. Modeled extreme heat resides in the top 8.3% nationally, crowded housing lands in the top 8.7% nationally, and lithium in drinking water registers in the top 8.9% nationally.
In plainer terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. 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. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 79911, 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.
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 78%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 63%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 66%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 44%
16%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 29%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 6%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 26%
11%
Disability
healthier than 20%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 16%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 69%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 69%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 86%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 38%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 18%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 23%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 39%
11%
Disability
healthier than 24%
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
79821
Texasshares a border
Score 45.70
Closest healthier
79911
Texasshares a border
Score 62.06
Similar health profile
75223
Texas98% similar profile
Score 46.35
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 | 21.2% | 19.0–23.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 34.4% | 31.3–37.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.6% | 4.2–5.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.7% | 7.7–9.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.3% | 5.7–7.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.1 |
| Depression among adults | 19.9% | 17.2–22.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.1% | 15.1–19.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.4% | 32.0–38.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 34.9% | 30.3–39.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.5% | 3.2–3.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 15.1% | 12.7–17.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 32.6% | 28.8–36.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.9% | 73.1–78.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.8% | 71.5–78.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.2% | 80.9–85.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 53.7% | 49.5–57.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 48.9% | 45.8–52.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.4% | 67.3–79.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.2% | 13.7–18.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 12.8% | 10.9–14.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 36.4% | 32.2–40.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.5% | 33.5–41.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 29.8% | 26.5–33.3 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.6% | 15.6–19.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.3% | 14.4–18.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.8% | 15.8–20.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.0% | 32.1–40.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.3% | 6.5–8.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.9% | 15.7–20.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.1–6.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–10.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.3% | 17.9–27.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.4% | 12.1–23.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.8% | 8.5–18.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.5% | 10.0–17.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.0% | 6.1–10.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.8% | 26.6–37.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.0% | 6.1–10.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 26.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 41.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 30.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 14.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 25.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 6.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 29.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 38.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 13.4% | 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 | $45,924 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $109,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $923 | $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 | 77.7 yr ± 0.67 | 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 0.67 years of 77.7, 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