ZIP code
92386
in Sugarloaf, CaliforniaPopulation 2,042
50.19/ 100
Ranked #15,972 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 50%)
Ranked #1,060 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 38%)
Ranked #72 of 153 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ZIPs (top 47%)
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.
Humid extreme heat
3 days/year
in the bottom 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›PFOA in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOA, one of the man-made “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
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 ›PFOS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.
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 ›Park land
54.5%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
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 ›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 ›PFAS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFAS — man-made “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down — were detected in EPA testing.
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 ›Loud transportation noise
2.3%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST67thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
17.1 mi
in the top 6.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS94thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›The read
Sugarloaf, California (ZIP 92386) ranks in the top 50% healthiest ZIPs nationally (15,972nd) and the bottom 38% of California (1,060th).
A profile of give and take, with clear readings each way: modeled humid heat registers in the bottom 1.8% nationally, and park land lies in the top 2.1% nationally. Home broadband subscription is at the national maximum, and floodplain exposure registers at the national minimum. Lead in tap water lies at the national minimum, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is in the top 6.5% nationally. On the other side, PFOA in drinking water registers at the national maximum, PFOS in drinking water lies at the national maximum, and PFAS in drinking water is at the national maximum. Modeled loud transportation noise registers in the top 5.8% nationally.
Against its neighbors, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For context, PFOA in drinking water is one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. PFOS in drinking water is a common one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 92305, 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
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 79%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 71%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.2%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 40%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 54%
8%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 29%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 32%
13%
Disability
healthier than 38%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 8%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 87%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.2%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 48%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 47%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 15%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 33%
16%
Disability
healthier than 36%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 5%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 62%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 71%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 71%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 62%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.7%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 51%
16%
Disability
healthier than 48%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 23%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 3%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
92305
Californiashares a border
Score 55.57
Closest healthier
92314
Californiashares a border
Score 51.43
Similar health profile
59419
Montana95% similar profile
Score 47.94
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 | 31.6% | 28.7–34.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.7% | 36.4–43.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.0% | 9.1–11.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.0–9.9 |
| Depression among adults | 22.4% | 19.7–25.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.3% | 11.6–15.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.0% | 36.7–43.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.5% | 29.2–37.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.6% | 8.7–13.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.4% | 6.1–9.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.6% | 72.5–78.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.7% | 71.6–77.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.0% | 86.5–89.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.5% | 57.1–66.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 59.8% | 56.6–63.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.2% | 66.7–79.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.8% | 12.5–17.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.9% | 11.4–16.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 22.7% | 19.5–26.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.5% | 31.5–39.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.9% | 20.9–26.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.8% | 15.0–18.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.7% | 13.8–17.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.6% | 12.7–16.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.4% | 28.8–36.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.0–9.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.0–10.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.9% | 14.5–19.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.3–5.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.3–6.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.1% | 21.2–27.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.3% | 12.8–17.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.0% | 14.0–19.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.7% | 10.0–13.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.3–9.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.1% | 29.5–36.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.0% | 6.0–8.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 24.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 26.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 37.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 100.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 40.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 63.3% | 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 | 6.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 69.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 29.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 51.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $50,694 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $458,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $1,917 | $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 | 77.9 yr ± 1.65 | 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 1.65 years of 77.9, 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