ZIP code
92501
in Riverside, CaliforniaPopulation 22,934
48.76/ 100
Ranked #17,982 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 44%)
Ranked #1,153 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 33%)
Ranked #82 of 153 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA ZIPs (bottom 46%)
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 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Lithium in drinking water
9.1 µg/L
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
In this ZIP
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.23 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health 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 ›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 ›Crowded housing
10.0%
in the top 4.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST76thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
2.5%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST69thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
0.86 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST88thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
56.3%
in the bottom 6.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST26thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
1.5%
in the top 6.1% 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 ›The read
By the composite health measure, ZIP 92501, one of several in Riverside, California ranks in the bottom 44% nationally (17,982nd) and the bottom 33% of California (1,153rd).
Where the load on this area runs deepest, the data leads: modeled expected annual loss rests in the top 1.1% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site stands at the national minimum. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk lies in the top 4.5% nationally, and crowded housing lands in the top 4.6% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise sits in the top 5.3% nationally, and colon screening is in the bottom 6.4% nationally. More encouragingly, lithium in drinking water settles in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and mental-health providers resides in the top 3.4% nationally. Distance to an emergency room registers at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Civic rests in the top 5.5% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, expected annual loss runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Close by, ZIP 92504, just across the boundary, ranks 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 85%
21%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 46%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 44%
11%
Disability
healthier than 44%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 9%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 35%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 57%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 47%
16%
Disability
healthier than 42%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 29%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 26%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 23%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 25%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 74%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 62%
16%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 60%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 36%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 38%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 30%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
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
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 7.0 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 85.2 — 78 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,065 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 77.9 ± 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
92316
Californiashares a border
Score 45.29
Closest healthier
92504
Californiashares a border
Score 49.85
Similar health profile
95367
California97% similar profile
Score 46.70
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 | 21.2% | 19.2–23.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.6% | 28.0–33.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.0% | 4.6–5.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.1% | 4.6–5.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.6 |
| Depression among adults | 22.9% | 20.3–25.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.5% | 10.2–12.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.0% | 31.3–36.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.5% | 34.4–42.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.7–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 12.0% | 9.8–14.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.1% | 12.1–16.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 66.5% | 63.5–69.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 69.4% | 66.2–72.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.7% | 80.6–84.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 56.3% | 51.8–60.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 58.1% | 54.8–61.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.5% | 72.4–83.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.6% | 13.4–18.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 12.4% | 10.8–14.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.8% | 24.6–31.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.0% | 35.8–44.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 25.2% | 22.7–27.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.7% | 16.8–20.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.7% | 13.2–16.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.5% | 15.7–19.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.8% | 31.5–38.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–6.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.4–10.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.0% | 13.4–16.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.3% | 3.9–4.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.9–7.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 29.1% | 26.0–32.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 23.4% | 20.7–26.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 19.9% | 17.5–22.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.6% | 18.3–23.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 11.8% | 10.5–13.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 38.0% | 34.3–41.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 8.9–11.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 12.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 17.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 8.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 37.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 43.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 10.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 17.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 32.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 11.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 33.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $81,886 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $509,300 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $1,595 | $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 ± 0.91 | 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 0.91 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