ZIP code
94963
in San Geronimo, CaliforniaPopulation 739
66.70/ 100
Ranked #1,378 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 4.3%)
Ranked #194 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 11.3%)
Ranked #72 of 174 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA ZIPs (top 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.
Median household income
$210,823
in the top 0.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Transit access
15 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›Park land
55.9%
in the top 1.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.7%
in the bottom 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
6.7%
in the bottom 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
27%
in the bottom 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.4%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
6.3%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
San Geronimo, California (ZIP 94963), overall, ranks in the top 4.3% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,378th) and the top 11.3% of California (194th).
This area's measures are easy to read as a mixed set: household income resides in the top 0.9% nationally, transit settles in the top 0.6% nationally, and modeled obesity is in the bottom 2.1% nationally. Park land sits in the top 1.9% nationally, poverty lands at the national minimum, and modeled utility shutoff lies in the bottom 2.3% nationally. Modeled food insecurity stands in the bottom 2.9% nationally, and loneliness rests in the bottom 3.1% nationally. Modeled transportation registers in the bottom 3.2% nationally, and housing insecurity resides in the bottom 3.6% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. ZIP 94941, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall. This area 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 71%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 90%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 85%
8%
Disability
healthier than 86%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 96%
5%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 39%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Environmental Hazard
in the top 1.0%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 97%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Disability
healthier than 82%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 93%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 37%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 66%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 79%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 57%
8%
Disability
healthier than 46%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 8%
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
94933
Californiashares a border
Score 66.34
Closest healthier
94941
Californiashares a border
Score 71.47
Similar health profile
03768
New Hampshire99% similar profile
Score 62.58
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 | 29.1% | 25.5–32.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.6% | 31.4–40.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 12.3% | 11.1–13.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.0% | 6.0–8.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.8% | 4.6–7.2 |
| Depression among adults | 21.5% | 18.2–24.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.7% | 9.0–12.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.0% | 35.4–44.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 22.0% | 16.7–28.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.4% | 2.9–4.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.5% | 5.1–8.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 3.8% | 2.8–5.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.1% | 74.6–81.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.9% | 73.2–80.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 92.2% | 90.8–93.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.6% | 67.0–75.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.8% | 71.7–77.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.2% | 69.6–83.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.2% | 12.5–18.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.3% | 6.1–10.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.6% | 12.9–20.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.0% | 23.6–34.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.7% | 12.9–19.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.4% | 11.5–15.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.3% | 10.3–14.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.3–12.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.8% | 22.4–31.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.0% | 5.9–8.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.9% | 4.9–7.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.7% | 10.4–15.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.0% | 2.5–3.6 |
| 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 | 19.4% | 16.0–22.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.0–8.7 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.4% | 4.5–8.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 4.9–7.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.4% | 3.6–5.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.0% | 22.9–31.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.7% | 2.9–4.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 0.0% | 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+) | 85.3% | 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 | 91.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 32.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 91.6% | 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 | 22.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 37.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 24.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 46.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $210,823 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,156,300 | $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