ZIP code
94710
in Berkeley, CaliforniaPopulation 8,380
63.93/ 100
Ranked #2,489 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 7.8%)
Ranked #309 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 18%)
Ranked #103 of 174 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA ZIPs (bottom 41%)
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.
Child-care access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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 ›Loud transportation noise
5.6%
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & 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
1.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$1
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Recreation access
1.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Transportation noise
20.7%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›High cholesterol
29.5%
in the bottom 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.31 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
4.1%
in the bottom 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
25.6%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite measure, ZIP 94710, one of several in Berkeley, California sits in the top 7.8% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,489th) and the top 18% of California (309th).
The readings split fairly evenly between strengths and concerns: childcare sits in the top 0.8% nationally, civic registers in the top 1.2% nationally, and recreation lands in the top 1.9% nationally. Modeled high cholesterol resides in the bottom 2.9% nationally, grocery lies in the top 3.5% nationally, and modeled hearing disability settles in the bottom 2.3% nationally. Modeled high blood pressure stands in the bottom 3.3% nationally. Working the other way, modeled loud transportation noise is in the top 1.1% nationally, and expected annual loss rests in the top 1.3% nationally. Modeled transportation noise sits in the top 2.4% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain language, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. ZIP 94706, 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 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, 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 97%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 80%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 65%
8%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 22%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 29%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 93%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 94%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 60%
11%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 53%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 51%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 60%
8%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 31%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 72%
16%
Disability
healthier than 61%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 70%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 32%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 16%
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.
Below its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 78.8 ± 2.1 years. The 46 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 81.3 years — 2.5 years below them.
Ranked #1,988 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 21.9; chronic-disease standing 97.2 (top 10%) — 75 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,861 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
94702
Californiashares a border
Score 63.19
Closest healthier
94706
Californiashares a border
Score 69.59
Similar health profile
92508
California99% similar profile
Score 59.68
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 | 17.7% | 15.7–19.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 25.6% | 23.0–28.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 3.9% | 3.5–4.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 3.6% | 3.2–4.1 |
| Depression among adults | 21.5% | 18.9–24.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.6% | 7.6–9.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 29.5% | 26.5–32.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 25.4% | 21.4–29.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.3% | 2.1–2.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.7% | 4.6–7.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.1% | 5.1–7.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 66.4% | 63.0–69.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 71.1% | 67.7–74.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.3% | 85.7–88.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.4% | 57.1–65.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 68.3% | 65.5–71.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.3% | 71.0–82.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 19.2% | 16.4–22.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.7% | 7.4–10.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.5% | 14.1–19.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.6% | 30.7–38.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.7% | 13.9–17.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.3% | 14.6–18.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.6% | 9.4–12.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.2% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 24.6% | 21.8–27.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.5–7.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.2–10.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.7% | 2.5–3.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.4–4.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.9% | 21.9–28.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.2–14.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.9% | 9.3–12.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.9–13.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.3% | 6.4–8.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 36.9% | 32.8–41.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.5–7.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 14.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 4.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 10.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 62.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 12.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 46.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 36.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 22.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 51.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 17.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 39.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $102,227 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,081,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,477 | $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 | 78.8 yr ± 1.05 | 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 1.05 years of 78.8, 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