ZIP code
85053
in Phoenix, ArizonaPopulation 29,773
50.25/ 100
Ranked #15,891 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 50%)
Ranked #204 of 394 Arizona ZIPs (bottom 48%)
Ranked #109 of 159 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ ZIPs (bottom 31%)
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.
Outer-floodplain exposure
100%
in the top 0.04% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
131.3 days/year
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Floodplain exposure
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
3.0%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
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 ›Walkability
150 intersections/sq mi
in the top 5.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
70 µg/L
in the top 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST55thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Transit access
3.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 29% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS29thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, ZIP 85053, one of several in Phoenix, Arizona lands in the top 50% healthiest ZIPs nationally (15,891st) and the bottom 48% of Arizona (204th).
Neither strongly one way nor the other, the measures sit mixed: floodplain exposure sits at the national minimum, and walkability rests in the top 5.4% nationally. Transit is in the top 9.5% nationally. Against that, outer-floodplain exposure stands in the top 0.04% nationally, modeled extreme heat settles in the top 0.5% nationally, and modeled loud transportation noise lies in the top 3.9% nationally. Modeled tree cover resides at the national minimum, lithium in drinking water lands in the top 6.2% nationally, and PFAS in drinking water registers in the top 11.4% nationally. Modeled colon screening sits in the bottom 10.5% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. PFAS in drinking water is the family of man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. Outer-floodplain exposure is land with a lower but real 1-in-500 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "500-year floodplain". Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 85023, 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 Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 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 73%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 62%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 66%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 68%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 50%
16%
Disability
healthier than 51%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 15%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 10%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 69%
21%
Disability
healthier than 65%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 48%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 40%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 39%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 31%
8%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 94%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 43%
21%
Disability
healthier than 42%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 42%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 32%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 25%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 35%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 16%
8%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 15.5; chronic-disease standing 73.1 — 58 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,179 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
85023
Arizonashares a border
Score 52.76
Closest healthier
85027
Arizonashares a border
Score 54.41
Similar health profile
85201
Arizona97% similar profile
Score 50.51
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 | 24.2% | 22.5–26.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.4% | 29.3–33.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.8% | 7.3–8.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.8–11.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.9% | 6.2–7.6 |
| Depression among adults | 20.6% | 18.6–22.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.0% | 9.9–12.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.3% | 34.0–38.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.4% | 28.8–36.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.3% | 3.0–3.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.3% | 12.2–16.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.4% | 11.7–15.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 71.6% | 69.2–73.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 72.1% | 69.5–74.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.4% | 81.6–85.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.6% | 55.3–61.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 56.8% | 54.1–59.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.5% | 67.6–77.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.4% | 14.6–18.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.5% | 12.1–15.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 22.2% | 19.8–24.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.7% | 33.3–40.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 20.3% | 18.5–22.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.8% | 15.4–18.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.1% | 11.9–14.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.7% | 14.2–17.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.7% | 29.1–34.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.4% | 6.7–8.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.5–9.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.8% | 12.5–15.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.0% | 3.7–4.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.7% | 5.3–6.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.3% | 24.0–28.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.2% | 16.4–20.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 14.0% | 12.3–15.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.3% | 11.8–14.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.8–10.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.2% | 30.6–36.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.9% | 7.0–8.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AZ median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.8% (4.6–36.9%) n=396 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 10.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.0–32.9%) n=394 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.3% (2.0–25.9%) n=397 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 27.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.8% (6.0–53.1%) n=397 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 7.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.3%) n=395 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–14.3%) n=394 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 90.4% (57.1–97.2%) n=394 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 34.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 25.5% (8.5–37.5%) n=394 |
| Homeownership rate | 61.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 76.3% (44.6–92.8%) n=394 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.3% (0.0–15.7%) n=394 |
| Foreign-born population | 11.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 7.6% (0.0–20.4%) n=397 |
| Single-parent households | 42.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.4% (30.6–79.7%) n=388 |
| Population 65+ | 13.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (8.0–46.8%) n=397 |
| Median age | 36.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.9 yr (30.0–62.5) n=394 |
| Median household income | $70,011 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,137 ($39,000–$114,111) n=371 |
| Median home value | $367,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $326,300 ($73,560–$591,760) n=363 |
| Median gross rent | $1,452 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,303 ($683–$2,093) n=323 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AZ median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 77.7 yr ± 0.97 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.5 yr (75.1–82.8) n=354 |
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 0.97 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