ZIP code
88038
in Gila, New MexicoPopulation 580
50.68/ 100
Ranked #15,303 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 48%)
Ranked #119 of 337 New Mexico ZIPs (top 35%)
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.
Civic-institution access
5.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›Park land
87.2%
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Walkability
0.21 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 0.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
2.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Binge drinking
9.6%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
25%
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
35.5 mi
in the top 1.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST85thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
39.1%
in the top 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
11.8%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Gila, New Mexico (ZIP 88038) places in the top 48% healthiest ZIPs nationally (15,303rd) and the top 35% of New Mexico (119th).
The measures fall on both sides for this area, fairly evenly: civic registers in the top 0.2% nationally, and park land settles in the top 0.4% nationally. Recreation sits in the top 0.8% nationally, and modeled binge drinking lies in the bottom 0.9% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility rests in the top 1.5% nationally, and modeled transportation noise resides at the national minimum. Pulling the other way, walkability is in the bottom 0.6% nationally, unemployment lands in the top 1.3% nationally, and modeled arsenic stands in the top 1.7% nationally. Modeled coronary heart disease registers in the top 2.1% nationally.
Beside the areas that surround it, civic runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For readers new to these terms, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 88025, 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
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 93%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 66%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 98%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 27%
16%
Disability
healthier than 22%
7%
Lifting this score
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 91%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 80%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 79%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 69%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 55%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 56%
14%
Disability
healthier than 50%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 14%
21%
“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
88025
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 54.12
Closest healthier
88028
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 52.49
Similar health profile
81413
Colorado96% similar profile
Score 49.51
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 | 40.5% | 36.1–45.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.5% | 41.7–51.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 14.0% | 12.6–15.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.2% | 8.9–11.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 11.8% | 10.5–13.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.0% | 9.1–12.9 |
| Depression among adults | 22.3% | 18.8–26.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.9% | 14.5–19.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 44.7% | 39.6–49.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.1% | 25.3–39.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.8% | 5.1–6.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 12.3% | 9.9–15.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.5% | 6.8–10.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.4% | 81.4–87.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.8% | 75.2–82.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.2% | 89.8–92.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.2% | 65.2–74.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 63.4% | 59.6–67.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 67.4% | 58.8–75.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 9.6% | 7.7–11.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.0% | 10.4–15.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.7% | 20.8–31.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.3% | 23.9–35.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.8% | 20.2–27.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.1% | 11.4–15.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.4% | 15.0–19.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.5% | 10.6–14.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.9% | 31.8–42.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 12.4% | 11.0–14.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.1–11.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 20.4% | 17.3–23.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.7% | 15.7–22.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.0% | 10.7–15.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.5% | 10.1–15.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.9% | 7.4–10.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.9% | 6.0–8.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.0% | 23.5–32.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 6.0–8.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NM median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 30.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.0% (0.0–39.0%) n=347 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 12.5% (0.0–35.5%) n=339 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.2% (0.0–28.5%) n=350 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 20.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.3% (0.0–51.7%) n=350 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 25.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.8% (0.0–15.2%) n=339 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–12.4%) n=347 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 83.1% (53.2–100.0%) n=347 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 51.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.6% (0.0–41.4%) n=347 |
| Homeownership rate | 95.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.2% (59.9–100.0%) n=347 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–11.2%) n=347 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–15.7%) n=352 |
| Single-parent households | 58.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (28.8–100.0%) n=339 |
| Population 65+ | 28.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.8% (7.9–55.9%) n=352 |
| Median age | 56.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 45.0 yr (31.2–67.3) n=339 |
| Median household income | $18,317 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,329 ($33,023–$90,174) n=265 |
| Median home value | $216,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $185,100 ($77,100–$382,920) n=255 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 81.5 yr ± 1.70 | 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 1.70 years of 81.5, 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