ZIP code
88352
in Tularosa, New MexicoPopulation 4,124
42.33/ 100
Ranked #24,947 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 22%)
Ranked #222 of 337 New Mexico ZIPs (bottom 34%)
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.
Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST35thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
9.4%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST70thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
6.9%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST76thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
13.5%
in the top 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.5 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST26thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.21 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
19 per million
in the bottom 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST65thUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Mammography
67.9%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST46thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.3%
in the top 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST71stUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.3%
in the top 7.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›The read
Tularosa, New Mexico (ZIP 88352), by its composite score, sits in the bottom 22% nationally (24,947th) and the bottom 34% of New Mexico (222nd).
The measures fall on both sides for this area, fairly evenly: modeled industrial-pollution burden is in the bottom 4.3% nationally, and elder services lands in the top 6.7% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk stands in the bottom 7.1% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled vision disability registers in the top 6.3% nationally, modeled self-care disability settles in the top 6.3% nationally, and unemployment sits in the top 4.9% nationally. Walkability lies in the bottom 5.0% nationally, modeled mammography rests in the bottom 7.4% nationally, and modeled hearing disability resides in the top 7.5% nationally. Modeled coronary heart disease is in the top 7.7% nationally.
For anyone unfamiliar, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 88301, 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 66%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 51%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 18%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 12%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 12%
13%
Disability
healthier than 8%
7%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 59%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 59%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 23%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 32%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 38%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 39%
8%
Disability
healthier than 28%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 95.1 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 18.1 — 77 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #655 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
88301
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 47.11
Closest healthier
88310
New Mexicoshares a border
Score 50.84
Similar health profile
87942
New Mexico97% similar profile
Score 40.78
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 | 32.3% | 28.8–35.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.3% | 38.0–46.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.0% | 8.2–9.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.3% | 9.0–11.7 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.3% | 9.3–11.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.2% | 9.1–11.4 |
| Depression among adults | 23.8% | 20.2–27.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.3% | 15.2–19.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.5% | 36.1–44.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.8% | 33.0–46.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.4% | 5.0–5.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 17.3% | 14.4–20.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 15.6% | 13.2–17.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.3% | 76.3–82.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.5% | 69.4–77.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.9% | 82.9–86.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.8% | 53.4–64.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 57.2% | 53.6–61.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 67.9% | 59.6–75.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.1% | 9.8–14.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.0% | 14.7–19.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.1% | 24.7–33.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.4% | 29.0–40.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 28.8% | 25.7–32.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.2% | 14.3–18.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.4% | 16.4–20.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.1% | 15.2–19.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 39.5% | 35.1–43.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.3% | 10.1–12.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.7% | 10.6–13.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.3% | 18.8–23.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.3–7.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.6–10.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.2% | 19.9–26.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 23.9% | 20.9–27.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 22.4% | 19.6–25.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.1% | 15.0–19.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.0% | 10.6–13.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.3% | 27.9–37.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 13.2% | 11.6–14.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NM median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.0% (0.0–39.0%) n=347 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 14.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 12.5% (0.0–35.5%) n=339 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.2% (0.0–28.5%) n=350 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.3% (0.0–51.7%) n=350 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 13.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.8% (0.0–15.2%) n=339 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–12.4%) n=347 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 83.1% (53.2–100.0%) n=347 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 15.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.6% (0.0–41.4%) n=347 |
| Homeownership rate | 83.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.2% (59.9–100.0%) n=347 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 6.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–11.2%) n=347 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–15.7%) n=352 |
| Single-parent households | 52.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (28.8–100.0%) n=339 |
| Population 65+ | 18.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 22.8% (7.9–55.9%) n=352 |
| Median age | 33.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 45.0 yr (31.2–67.3) n=339 |
| Median household income | $48,693 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,329 ($33,023–$90,174) n=265 |
| Median home value | $152,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $185,100 ($77,100–$382,920) n=255 |
| Median gross rent | $938 | $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 | 79.9 yr ± 0.90 | 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 0.90 years of 79.9, 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