ZIP code
94933
in Forest Knolls, CaliforniaPopulation 1,033
66.34/ 100
Ranked #1,506 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 4.7%)
Ranked #214 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 12.5%)
Ranked #80 of 174 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA ZIPs (top 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.
Mental-health provider access
0.82 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
22%
in the bottom 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST12thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
0 per 100,000 residents per year
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.82 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient 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 ›Utility shut-off threat
3.9%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
0.82 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Housing-cost burden
48.1%
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.1%
in the bottom 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Transit access
5.7 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›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 ›The read
By the composite measure, Forest Knolls, California (ZIP 94933) sits in the top 4.7% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,506th) and the top 12.5% of California (214th).
The profile cuts both ways, and the readings bear that out: mental-health providers lies in the top 0.4% nationally, modeled obesity settles in the bottom 2.1% nationally, and fatal road crashes stands at the national minimum. Outpatient is in the top 3.0% nationally, modeled utility shutoff rests in the bottom 3.3% nationally, and childcare sits in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled food insecurity registers in the bottom 4.0% nationally, and transit lands in the top 4.0% nationally. Lead in tap water resides at the national minimum. Working the other way, housing-cost burden lies in the top 3.8% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, mental-health providers runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain language, lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. ZIP 94941, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall. This ZIP also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
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 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 98%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 88%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 95%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
Disability
healthier than 87%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 98%
5%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 32%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 96%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 91%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 97%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 43%
21%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 97%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 87%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 68%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 91%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 42%
8%
Disability
healthier than 50%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 5%
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
94938
Californiashares a border
Score 65.70
Closest healthier
94941
Californiashares a border
Score 71.47
Similar health profile
94037
California99% similar profile
Score 65.57
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 | 28.1% | 24.5–31.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 34.0% | 29.7–38.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.6% | 10.3–12.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.5% | 5.6–7.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.6% | 4.4–7.2 |
| Depression among adults | 22.0% | 18.6–25.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.2% | 8.6–12.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.1% | 34.6–43.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 22.0% | 16.5–28.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.2% | 2.8–3.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 4.8% | 3.7–6.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 3.7% | 2.8–5.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.0% | 73.6–80.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.0% | 72.2–79.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.5% | 90.0–92.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.3% | 66.5–75.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 73.5% | 70.3–76.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.6% | 71.3–84.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.6% | 12.9–18.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.5% | 6.3–11.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.5% | 13.0–20.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.5% | 24.9–36.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.6% | 12.7–19.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.0% | 12.0–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.3% | 10.3–14.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.5% | 8.7–12.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.5% | 22.1–31.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.4% | 5.5–7.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.0–7.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.4% | 10.0–15.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.0% | 2.5–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.5% | 2.9–4.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.9% | 16.8–23.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.3–9.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 4.8–9.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.2–8.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.7% | 3.9–5.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.8% | 23.7–32.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.9% | 3.2–4.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.4% | 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+) | 5.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 52.6% | 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 | 9.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 48.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.2% | 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 | 8.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 51.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 40.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 62.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $133,006 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $862,100 | $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 unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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