ZIP code
91730
in Rancho Cucamonga, CaliforniaPopulation 71,613
54.46/ 100
Ranked #10,116 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 32%)
Ranked #804 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 47%)
Ranked #45 of 153 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ZIPs (top 29%)
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.
Subsidized affordable housing
749 units
in the top 2.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS97thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS97thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›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 ›Housing-cost burden
45.2%
in the top 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST79thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.57 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.5%
in the top 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST60thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Full methodology ›Physician access
2.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices 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 ›The read
By its overall health score, ZIP 91730, one of several in Rancho Cucamonga, California lands in the top 32% healthiest ZIPs nationally (10,116th) and the top 47% of California (804th).
Strengths and concerns sit side by side across the measures here: subsidized affordable housing registers in the top 2.5% nationally, and dental providers sits in the top 2.6% nationally. Lead in tap water rests at the national minimum, and outpatient is in the top 6.1% nationally. Physicians stands in the top 6.6% nationally. On the other hand, modeled disaster risk settles in the top 3.3% nationally, expected annual loss lies in the top 3.5% nationally, and tree cover resides at the national minimum. Housing-cost burden lands in the top 5.4% nationally, and modeled fine-particle registers in the top 6.2% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. 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 91701, 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 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, 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 90%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 69%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 68%
8%
Disability
healthier than 71%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 76%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 53%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 2%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 70%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 63%
8%
Disability
healthier than 65%
7%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 53%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 45%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 35%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 38%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 91%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 70%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 67%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 81%
8%
Disability
healthier than 85%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 50%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 4%
14%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 2.2 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 90.0 (top 10%) — 88 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,749 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 39.7 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 80.5 ± 1.5 years.
Ranked #1,484 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
91701
Californiashares a border
Score 59.39
Closest healthier
91739
Californiashares a border
Score 60.81
Similar health profile
92806
California97% similar profile
Score 54.19
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 | 21.0% | 18.9–23.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.6% | 27.8–33.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–6.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.1% | 9.0–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.1 |
| Depression among adults | 19.9% | 17.4–22.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.8% | 9.5–12.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.1% | 30.1–36.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.7% | 27.6–35.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.8% | 7.2–10.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.2% | 8.8–11.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 68.7% | 65.4–71.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 70.8% | 67.4–73.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.4% | 83.7–87.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.5% | 53.3–61.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 60.6% | 57.5–63.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.2% | 69.0–81.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.8% | 13.5–18.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.0% | 9.6–12.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 22.5% | 19.7–25.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.6% | 33.5–42.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.5% | 19.4–23.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.4–18.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.8% | 11.5–14.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.5% | 13.1–16.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 27.8% | 24.9–30.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.8% | 7.1–8.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.2% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.4% | 5.0–5.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 28.8% | 25.7–32.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.5% | 16.4–20.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 16.7% | 14.8–18.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.7% | 13.9–17.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 8.7–10.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 37.3% | 33.5–41.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.0% | 7.0–9.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 9.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 32.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 45.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 47.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 7.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 21.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 43.9% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 13.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 36.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $92,237 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $616,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,299 | $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 | 80.5 yr ± 0.74 | 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 0.74 years of 80.5, 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