ZIP code
88061
in Silver City, New MexicoPopulation 17,464
51.28/ 100
Ranked #14,444 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 45%)
Ranked #107 of 337 New Mexico ZIPs (top 32%)
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.
Distance to a Superfund site
85.3 mi
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
19.5 mi
in the top 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST58thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Park land
25.1%
in the top 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST79thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Mammography
67.7%
in the bottom 7.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST45thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
17.7 per million
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST62ndUS7thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
66 µg/L
in the top 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST70thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Walkability
2.2 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 8.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST36thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
266 units
in the top 9.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
12.4 days/year
in the bottom 9.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST51stUS9thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.17 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, Silver City, New Mexico (ZIP 88061) lands in the top 45% healthiest ZIPs nationally (14,444th) and the top 32% of New Mexico (107th).
A number of signals point in a favorable direction for this area: distance to a Superfund site settles in the top 4.6% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility lies in the top 5.1% nationally. Distance to an emergency room resides at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Park land lands in the top 5.6% nationally, modeled air-toxics cancer risk registers in the bottom 6.6% nationally, and subsidized affordable housing sits in the top 9.3% nationally. Modeled humid heat rests in the bottom 9.3% nationally. Working the other way, modeled mammography is in the bottom 7.0% nationally, lithium in drinking water stands in the top 7.1% nationally, and walkability settles in the bottom 8.7% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. 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. 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. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 88022, 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 95%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 70%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 95%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 51%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 39%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Disability
healthier than 22%
7%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 77%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 64%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 71%
11%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 43%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 59%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Disability
healthier than 51%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 59%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
“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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 95.2 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 39.3 — 56 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #2,044 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
88022
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 51.41
Closest healthier
88026
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 53.03
Similar health profile
87571
New Mexico96% similar profile
Score 52.57
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 | 30.7% | 27.3–34.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.3% | 34.1–42.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.5% | 8.6–10.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.9% | 8.7–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.1% | 8.2–10.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.5–9.5 |
| Depression among adults | 22.2% | 18.7–25.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.0% | 13.0–17.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.7% | 34.3–43.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.9% | 26.0–40.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 15.8% | 13.0–19.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.9% | 13.0–17.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.9% | 75.8–81.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 72.1% | 68.0–76.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.5% | 83.7–87.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.4% | 57.3–67.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.0% | 57.4–64.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 67.7% | 59.4–75.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.3% | 9.9–14.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.4% | 11.5–15.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.4% | 23.1–32.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.9% | 25.4–36.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 25.3% | 22.4–28.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.2% | 13.3–17.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.7% | 14.8–18.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.4–17.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.2% | 31.8–40.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.2% | 9.1–11.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.9% | 8.8–11.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.1% | 15.9–20.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.9–5.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.7% | 7.0–8.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.3% | 18.9–25.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 19.6% | 17.0–22.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 16.9% | 14.7–19.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.4% | 12.4–16.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 10.1% | 8.9–11.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.0% | 27.0–37.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 8.8–11.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NM median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 19.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.0% (0.0–39.0%) n=347 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 12.5% (0.0–35.5%) n=339 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.2% (0.0–28.5%) n=350 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 35.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.3% (0.0–51.7%) n=350 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.8% (0.0–15.2%) n=339 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–12.4%) n=347 |
| Broadband subscription | 88.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 83.1% (53.2–100.0%) n=347 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.6% (0.0–41.4%) n=347 |
| Homeownership rate | 73.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.2% (59.9–100.0%) n=347 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–11.2%) n=347 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–15.7%) n=352 |
| Single-parent households | 61.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (28.8–100.0%) n=339 |
| Population 65+ | 30.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.8% (7.9–55.9%) n=352 |
| Median age | 49.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 45.0 yr (31.2–67.3) n=339 |
| Median household income | $47,917 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,329 ($33,023–$90,174) n=265 |
| Median home value | $204,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $185,100 ($77,100–$382,920) n=255 |
| Median gross rent | $863 | $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 | 78.5 yr ± 0.68 | 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 0.68 years of 78.5, 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