ZIP code
91106
in Pasadena, CaliforniaPopulation 23,910
64.58/ 100
Ranked #2,167 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 6.8%)
Ranked #282 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 16%)
Ranked #95 of 371 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ZIPs (top 26%)
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.
Expected annual disaster loss
$1
in the top 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
22.4%
in the bottom 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST14thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Floodplain exposure
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.74 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
25.5%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
47.9%
in the top 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
35.9%
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST13thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
40 per million
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST73rdUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
14.6%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Lead in tap water
0 ppb
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
US1stDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
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 ›The read
By its overall health score, ZIP 91106, one of several in Pasadena, California lands in the top 6.8% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,167th) and the top 16% of California (282nd).
Strengths and concerns sit side by side across the measures here: modeled obesity lies in the bottom 2.4% nationally, and floodplain exposure resides at the national minimum. Outpatient lands in the top 3.6% nationally, and modeled high blood pressure registers in the bottom 3.2% nationally. Lead in tap water sits at the national minimum. On the other hand, modeled expected annual loss rests in the top 1.2% nationally, housing-cost burden is in the top 4.0% nationally, and homeownership stands in the bottom 4.3% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk settles in the top 4.5% nationally, and transportation noise lies in the top 4.5% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, expected annual loss runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 91030, 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 97%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 74%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 88%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Disability
healthier than 90%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 73%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 76%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 17%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 26%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 93%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 68%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Disability
healthier than 86%
7%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 48%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 53%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 53%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 93%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 62%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 70%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 76%
8%
Disability
healthier than 81%
7%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 55%
13%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 27%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 18%
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
3 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 83.2 ± 1.8 years. A median household income of $90,028 predicts 79.7 years — 3.6 years above.
Ranked #271 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 17.1; chronic-disease standing 97.4 (top 10%) — 80 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,214 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 40.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 83.2 ± 1.8 years.
Ranked #504 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
91030
Californiashares a border
Score 70.30
Closest healthier
91105
Californiashares a border
Score 71.89
Similar health profile
94086
California99% similar profile
Score 71.97
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 | 17.1% | 15.8–18.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 25.5% | 23.7–27.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.7% | 7.8–9.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.0% | 3.6–4.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–3.9 |
| Depression among adults | 19.2% | 17.4–21.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.9% | 8.1–9.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.0% | 31.8–36.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 22.4% | 20.0–24.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.3% | 2.2–2.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.1% | 5.0–7.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.5% | 5.5–7.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.2% | 66.7–71.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 71.8% | 69.4–74.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.9% | 84.5–87.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 59.3% | 55.9–62.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 66.5% | 64.2–68.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.0% | 72.2–81.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.3% | 14.5–18.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.3% | 7.3–9.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.7% | 16.9–20.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.1% | 31.3–36.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 16.5% | 15.1–17.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.8% | 13.5–16.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.7% | 9.7–11.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.1% | 11.0–13.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 24.4% | 22.5–26.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.5% | 4.1–5.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.7–6.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.9–10.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.7–4.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 27.6% | 25.4–30.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.0% | 11.5–14.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 10.2–12.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 6.4–7.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 38.6% | 36.0–41.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.6–5.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 61.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 8.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 47.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 35.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 28.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 48.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 11.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 38.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $90,028 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,040,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,177 | $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 | 83.2 yr ± 0.90 | 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 0.90 years of 83.2, 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