ZIP code
90277
in Redondo Beach, CaliforniaPopulation 34,844
67.80/ 100
Ranked #1,065 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 3.4%)
Ranked #158 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 9.2%)
Ranked #45 of 371 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ZIPs (top 12.2%)
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.
Obesity
22.2%
in the bottom 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST13thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.6%
in the bottom 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
4.1%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Recreation access
1.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Energy-cost burden
1.0%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS1stDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
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 ›Food insecurity
7.4%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.7%
in the bottom 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.61 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics located 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST76thUS95thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›The read
On balance, and by the composite measure, ZIP 90277, one of several in Redondo Beach, California ranks in the top 3.4% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,065th) and the top 9.2% of California (158th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures split the difference for this area: modeled obesity registers in the bottom 2.2% nationally, and utility shutoff sits in the bottom 2.0% nationally. Recreation rests in the top 3.1% nationally, and modeled energy burden is in the bottom 1.1% nationally. Modeled food insecurity stands in the bottom 5.0% nationally, modeled transportation settles in the bottom 5.1% nationally, and outpatient lies in the top 5.3% nationally. Against that, modeled loud transportation noise resides in the top 2.1% nationally, tree cover lands at the national minimum, and expected annual loss registers in the top 5.5% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs it borders, walkability runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plainer terms, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 90254, 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 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 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 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 95%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 8%
14%
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 84%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 88%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 90%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 63%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 31%
14%
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 60%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 87%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
5%
Not placed: Climate / Disaster Risk — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 5% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
“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
2 of our published findings list 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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 83.0 ± 1.2 years. A median household income of $127,795 predicts 81.0 years — 1.9 years above.
Ranked #971 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 83.0 ± 1.2 years. The 48 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 79.9 years — 3.0 years above them.
Ranked #793 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
90254
Californiashares a border
Score 69.44
Closest healthier
90274
Californiashares a border
Score 72.39
Similar health profile
90064
California100% similar profile
Score 68.53
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 | 20.8% | 19.1–22.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 27.9% | 25.9–30.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.4% | 7.8–9.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.9% | 8.1–9.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.5% | 4.1–4.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.7% | 3.2–4.2 |
| Depression among adults | 19.9% | 18.1–21.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.5% | 7.7–9.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.0% | 34.6–39.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 22.2% | 19.8–24.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.5% | 2.3–2.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 4.4% | 3.6–5.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.0% | 3.4–4.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.5% | 69.8–74.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.6% | 72.3–76.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.9% | 88.8–90.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 63.2% | 59.9–66.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.1% | 71.9–76.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.6% | 75.0–83.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.4% | 15.5–19.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.2% | 6.2–8.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 14.8% | 13.2–16.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.3% | 28.5–33.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.6% | 12.2–15.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.4% | 12.2–14.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.4% | 9.4–11.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.1% | 9.0–11.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 22.6% | 20.6–24.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.8–5.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.5–10.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.2–2.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.6% | 21.5–25.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 6.5–8.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 5.4–7.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.5% | 6.6–8.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.7% | 32.2–37.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.6% | 3.1–4.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 69.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 41.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 48.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 19.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 51.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 19.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 45.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $127,795 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,476,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,742 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,912 ($1,113–$2,923) n=1,461 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 83.0 yr ± 0.62 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.5 yr (76.7–83.8) n=1,665 |
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 0.62 years of 83.0, 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