ZIP code
93208
in Camp Nelson, CaliforniaPopulation 157
40.58/ 100
Ranked #26,349 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 18%)
Ranked #1,487 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 13.5%)
Ranked #13 of 31 Visalia, CA ZIPs (top 42%)
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.
Coronary heart disease
13.5%
in the top 0.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
8.3%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
60 per million
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Park land
86.4%
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Stroke
6.7%
in the top 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
13.1%
in the top 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS1stDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
28.7%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
47.5%
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
25.3%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Camp Nelson, California (ZIP 93208) places in the bottom 18% nationally (26,349th) and the bottom 13.5% of California (1,487th).
The data opens on real and measurable burdens: modeled coronary heart disease lies in the top 0.6% nationally, and fine-particle rests in the top 0.3% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk resides in the top 0.3% nationally, and stroke is in the top 1.8% nationally. Modeled hearing disability lands in the top 1.8% nationally, tooth loss stands in the top 3.9% nationally, and high cholesterol registers in the top 1.1% nationally. Modeled mobility disability settles in the top 3.1% nationally. More encouragingly, park land sits in the top 0.4% nationally, and modeled industrial-pollution burden lies in the bottom 1.3% nationally.
Beside the areas that surround it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For readers new to these terms, fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Among nearby ZIPs, the nearest healthier one overall is ZIP 93265, 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 Visalia, CA metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 79%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 90%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 62%
8%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 1%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 1%
14%
Disability
healthier than 10%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 9%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 73%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 89%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 79%
11%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 57%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.5%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 38%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 5%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 93%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 90%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 93%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.00%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
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
93265
Californiashares a border
Score 46.59
Closest healthier
93221
Californiaabout 9.6 mi away
Score 45.50
Similar health profile
96017
California96% similar profile
Score 43.56
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 | 40.8% | 36.0–45.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 50.3% | 45.2–55.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 15.3% | 13.6–17.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.9% | 9.5–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 13.5% | 11.5–15.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.9% | 10.1–16.1 |
| Depression among adults | 23.3% | 19.6–27.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 18.4% | 15.6–21.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 47.5% | 42.6–52.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.5% | 26.4–40.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.7% | 5.6–7.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 28.7% | 24.1–33.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.2% | 3.7–7.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 83.7% | 80.7–86.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.2% | 77.9–84.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.4% | 89.8–92.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.8% | 59.5–69.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.4% | 62.0–68.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 70.7% | 62.2–78.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 10.5% | 8.6–12.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.9% | 11.2–18.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.0% | 23.8–36.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 28.1% | 23.0–33.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 28.0% | 23.0–33.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.0–17.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 19.2% | 16.0–22.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.1% | 11.5–16.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 41.2% | 35.0–47.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 13.1% | 11.3–15.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.2% | 9.0–13.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 25.3% | 20.7–30.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.1–7.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.2% | 5.9–8.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.7% | 17.2–24.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.8% | 10.2–18.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.7% | 12.9–23.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 7.1–11.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.2–9.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.7% | 24.1–33.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.5% | 5.2–8.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 5.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 6.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 100.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 55.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 65.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $245,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 84.0 yr ± 2.32 | 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 2.32 years of 84.0, 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