ZIP code
93623
in Fish Camp, CaliforniaPopulation 4
46.89/ 100
Ranked #20,292 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 37%)
Ranked #1,236 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 28%)
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.
Poverty rate
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
3.9%
in the top 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST83rdUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
33.2 mi
in the top 1.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Lithium in drinking water
110 µg/L
in the top 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›Tree cover
79.1%
in the top 5.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
1.8%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
57.6%
in the bottom 8.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST31stUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Distance to an emergency room
15.2 mi
in the top 10.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare-certified hospital with an emergency room.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the bottom 11.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS12thDefinition & 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 ›The read
Judged by its overall standing, Fish Camp, California (ZIP 93623) sits in the bottom 37% nationally (20,292nd) and the bottom 28% of California (1,236th).
The profile carries real weight, and several readings make that plain: poverty lands at the national maximum, modeled fine-particle rests in the top 1.6% nationally, and lithium in drinking water settles in the top 2.0% nationally. Slow internet speeds lands in the top 6.5% nationally, and modeled colon screening rests in the bottom 8.4% nationally. Fiber broadband settles at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Distance to an emergency room lands in the top 10.8% nationally. Better still, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility rests in the top 1.6% nationally, and floodplain exposure settles at the national minimum. Modeled tree cover lands in the top 5.3% nationally.
Placed beside its immediate neighbors, poverty runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put plainly, fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 93601, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Risk Behavior
healthier than 70%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 97%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 49%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 44%
8%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 31%
13%
Disability
healthier than 37%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 26%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 96%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 53%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 46%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 19%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 39%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 34%
8%
Disability
healthier than 35%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 17%
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
93601
Californiashares a border
Score 47.40
Closest healthier
93644
Californiashares a border
Score 49.83
Similar health profile
56277
Minnesota89% similar profile
Score 49.30
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 | 28.8% | 24.9–32.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 37.6% | 33.2–42.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.4% | 8.4–10.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.7% | 9.3–12.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.3% | 7.1–9.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.6% | 5.8–9.9 |
| Depression among adults | 23.3% | 19.6–27.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.4% | 11.2–15.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.8% | 34.2–43.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.4% | 26.0–41.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.2% | 3.5–4.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.5% | 8.3–13.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.0% | 5.1–9.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.9% | 70.9–78.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.8% | 70.7–78.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.2% | 86.9–91.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.6% | 52.4–62.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 69.3% | 66.1–72.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.6% | 60.6–77.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.7% | 12.8–18.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.6% | 10.3–19.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.4% | 19.1–30.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.6% | 26.5–39.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.4% | 18.7–28.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.3% | 14.7–20.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.8% | 13.0–18.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.7% | 11.8–18.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 33.6% | 27.8–39.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.7% | 7.5–9.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.1% | 7.2–11.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.8% | 13.6–20.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.8% | 3.7–6.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.9% | 4.8–7.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.9% | 19.7–28.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.9% | 10.7–20.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.5% | 11.0–21.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.8% | 9.8–16.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.4% | 6.6–10.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.6% | 26.3–37.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 5.9–9.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 100.0% | 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+) | 100.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | — | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | — | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | — | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | — | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | — | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | — | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 100.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | — | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 0.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | — | 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 | — | $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 | 80.9 yr ± 1.56 | 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 1.56 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