ZIP code
88001
in Las Cruces, New MexicoPopulation 37,690
41.77/ 100
Ranked #25,412 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 21%)
Ranked #231 of 337 New Mexico ZIPs (bottom 31%)
Ranked #12 of 23 Las Cruces, NM ZIPs (bottom 48%)
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)
21.6%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
52.5%
in the bottom 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST18thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Mammography
64.7%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST25thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
In this ZIP
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Vision disability
10.1%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST78thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
5.5%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Walkability
170 intersections/sq mi
in the top 3.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
16.6%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
34.4%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
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 ›The read
Overall, ZIP 88001, one of several in Las Cruces, New Mexico places in the bottom 21% nationally (25,412th) and the bottom 31% of New Mexico (231st).
The measures that matter most for this area lead the way: modeled uninsured lands in the top 3.6% nationally, and colon screening stands in the bottom 3.1% nationally. Modeled mammography registers in the bottom 2.6% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site settles at the national minimum. Modeled vision disability sits in the top 4.7% nationally, slow internet speeds lies in the top 2.3% nationally, and modeled transportation rests in the top 4.5% nationally. Poverty resides in the top 4.7% nationally, and modeled tree cover is at the national minimum. On the better side, walkability lands in the top 3.9% nationally.
Beside the areas that surround it, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For readers new to these terms, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 88005, 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 Las Cruces, NM 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 74%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 86%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 92%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 54%
11%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 5%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 1%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 27%
8%
Disability
healthier than 12%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 31%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 92%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 46%
14%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 22%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 10%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Disability
healthier than 35%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 10%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 67%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 76%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 90%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 43%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 43%
11%
Disability
healthier than 48%
7%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 33%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 19%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 24%
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 its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 76.7 ± 1.3 years. The 47 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 80.2 years — 3.4 years below them.
Ranked #2,660 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
88003
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 41.26
Closest healthier
88005
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 47.25
Similar health profile
92307
California97% similar profile
Score 46.69
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 | 21.7% | 19.5–24.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.7% | 28.6–35.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.1% | 8.9–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.7% | 6.0–7.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.6% | 5.9–7.3 |
| Depression among adults | 24.2% | 21.0–27.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.0% | 12.4–15.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 31.4% | 28.2–34.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.0% | 32.5–43.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.8% | 15.7–22.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 21.6% | 19.1–24.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.2% | 66.4–71.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 67.6% | 63.5–71.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 75.8% | 73.2–78.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 52.5% | 47.8–57.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 51.4% | 47.9–55.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 64.7% | 57.0–71.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.0% | 12.4–18.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.4% | 12.5–16.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.9% | 27.1–35.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.3% | 29.7–38.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 29.9% | 26.9–32.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.7% | 16.7–20.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.0% | 15.2–18.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.5% | 18.4–22.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.4% | 36.5–44.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.4–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.2% | 11.0–13.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.9% | 15.1–18.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.5–6.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 10.1% | 9.3–10.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.1% | 22.7–29.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 32.0% | 28.8–35.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 28.7% | 25.6–31.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 23.2% | 20.7–26.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 16.6% | 14.9–18.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 36.8% | 32.4–41.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 16.2% | 14.4–18.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NM median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 34.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.0% (0.0–39.0%) n=347 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 16.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 12.5% (0.0–35.5%) n=339 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 16.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.2% (0.0–28.5%) n=350 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.3% (0.0–51.7%) n=350 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 8.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.8% (0.0–15.2%) n=339 |
| Households without a vehicle | 10.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–12.4%) n=347 |
| Broadband subscription | 87.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 83.1% (53.2–100.0%) n=347 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 44.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.6% (0.0–41.4%) n=347 |
| Homeownership rate | 41.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.2% (59.9–100.0%) n=347 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–11.2%) n=347 |
| Foreign-born population | 12.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–15.7%) n=352 |
| Single-parent households | 39.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (28.8–100.0%) n=339 |
| Population 65+ | 11.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.8% (7.9–55.9%) n=352 |
| Median age | 28.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 45.0 yr (31.2–67.3) n=339 |
| Median household income | $33,087 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,329 ($33,023–$90,174) n=265 |
| Median home value | $163,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $185,100 ($77,100–$382,920) n=255 |
| Median gross rent | $806 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $917 ($549–$1,408) n=173 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NM median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 76.7 yr ± 0.64 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 79.5 yr (76.1–83.2) n=357 |
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 0.64 years of 76.7, 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