ZIP code
91737
in Rancho Cucamonga, CaliforniaPopulation 22,958
58.46/ 100
Ranked #6,029 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 19%)
Ranked #587 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 34%)
Ranked #19 of 153 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ZIPs (top 12.5%)
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.
Loud transportation noise
4.8%
in the top 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
11.2%
in the top 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST79thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
36.2 per million
in the top 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST55thUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Median household income
$122,334
in the top 8.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST75thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Lead in tap water
0.00036 ppb
in the bottom 9.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
US10thDefinition & 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 ›Tooth loss
6.8%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST21stUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 91737, one of several in Rancho Cucamonga, California, overall, ranks in the top 19% healthiest ZIPs nationally (6,029th) and the top 34% of California (587th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: household income resides in the top 8.9% nationally, lead in tap water settles in the bottom 9.7% nationally, and modeled tooth loss is in the bottom 7.4% nationally. Modeled hearing disability sits in the bottom 12.1% nationally. On the other side, modeled loud transportation noise lands in the top 1.5% nationally, and transportation noise lies in the top 7.1% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk stands in the top 8.6% nationally, and expected annual loss rests in the top 10.5% nationally. Modeled disaster risk registers in the top 10.8% nationally, and housing-cost burden resides in the top 13.6% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, outer-floodplain exposure runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, 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. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. ZIP 91701, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.
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 84%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 67%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 84%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 81%
8%
Disability
healthier than 78%
7%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 54%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 34%
13%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 62%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 68%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 80%
8%
Disability
healthier than 73%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 55%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 56%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 35%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 72%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 90%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 93%
8%
Disability
healthier than 91%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 75%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 31%
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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 9.8 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 84.1 — 74 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,763 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
91701
Californiashares a border
Score 59.39
Closest healthier
91739
Californiashares a border
Score 60.81
Similar health profile
95051
California99% similar profile
Score 70.85
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 | 24.1% | 21.7–26.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 33.0% | 29.9–35.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.4% | 6.7–8.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.9% | 8.7–11.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.5 |
| Depression among adults | 19.4% | 17.0–22.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.2% | 9.7–12.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.4% | 33.2–39.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 29.3% | 25.3–33.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.8% | 5.4–8.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.6% | 6.5–8.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.7% | 69.6–75.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.5% | 70.3–76.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.9% | 86.5–89.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.0% | 57.8–66.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 64.4% | 61.4–67.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.8% | 69.8–81.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.1% | 12.8–17.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.0% | 8.6–11.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.5% | 17.7–23.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.3% | 31.3–39.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.5% | 17.4–21.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.5% | 13.9–17.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.6% | 11.2–14.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.7% | 11.3–14.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.8% | 23.8–29.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.6% | 4.9–6.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.3–7.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.3% | 10.9–13.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.1–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.6% | 23.7–29.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.8% | 12.0–15.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.6–13.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 10.1–13.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.5% | 6.7–8.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.1% | 31.5–38.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.9% | 5.1–6.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 41.4% | 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 | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 37.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 71.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 18.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 52.9% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 19.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 44.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $122,334 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $878,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,371 | $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 | 80.9 yr ± 0.93 | 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 0.93 years of 80.9, 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