ZIP code
95602
in Auburn, CaliforniaPopulation 19,701
56.28/ 100
Ranked #7,992 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 25%)
Ranked #712 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 41%)
Ranked #44 of 122 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA ZIPs (top 36%)
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.
Air-toxics cancer risk
49.7 per million
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
4.2%
in the top 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST13thUS5thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 8.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST65thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
4.7%
in the bottom 9.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST19thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, ZIP 95602, one of several in Auburn, California lands in the top 25% healthiest ZIPs nationally (7,992nd) and the top 41% of California (712th).
The signals balance out across the profile, strengths against concerns: modeled industrial-pollution burden sits in the bottom 5.4% nationally. Distance to an emergency room is at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Modeled utility shutoff settles in the bottom 9.7% nationally, modeled obesity resides in the bottom 11.4% nationally, and physicians registers in the top 10.1% nationally. Modeled short sleep rests in the bottom 10.5% nationally. Set against that, modeled air-toxics cancer risk stands in the top 1.1% nationally, fine-particle lies in the top 1.4% nationally, and disaster risk lands in the top 8.2% nationally. Modeled extreme heat sits in the top 10.2% nationally.
Set beside the nearby areas, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. A note on the terms: air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 95648, just across the boundary, ranks better 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 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, 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 77%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 72%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 54%
21%
Disability
healthier than 60%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 52%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 4%
14%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 71%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 84%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 69%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 56%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 22%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 18%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 40%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 67%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 74%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 14%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 13%
14%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 4.0 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 54.2 — 50 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #14,398 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 49.7 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 79.4 ± 1.6 years.
Ranked #192 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
95603
Californiashares a border
Score 53.03
Closest healthier
95648
Californiashares a border
Score 56.86
Similar health profile
95642
California96% similar profile
Score 53.99
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 | 30.7% | 27.9–33.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.1% | 34.8–41.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 12.0% | 11.1–12.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.3% | 9.3–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.9% | 7.2–8.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.0% | 6.2–7.9 |
| Depression among adults | 21.9% | 19.3–24.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.5% | 10.2–12.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.0% | 36.6–43.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 28.0% | 23.1–33.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.0% | 3.7–4.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.4% | 7.0–10.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.0% | 5.2–6.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.8% | 75.3–80.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.2% | 74.4–79.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.0% | 88.8–91.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.8% | 65.2–72.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.0% | 67.4–72.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.3% | 74.2–83.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.8% | 12.7–17.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.3% | 8.9–11.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.9% | 17.8–23.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.2% | 26.1–34.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.0% | 16.8–21.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.1% | 13.6–16.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.8–15.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.6% | 11.4–13.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.4% | 28.0–34.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.5–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.8% | 7.0–8.7 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.6% | 13.8–17.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.5% | 4.1–5.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.3% | 19.8–25.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.9% | 8.8–11.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.3% | 8.2–10.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 5.4–6.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.1% | 27.6–35.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.1% | 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+) | 33.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 37.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 80.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 6.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 66.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 32.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 51.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $97,466 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $688,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $1,864 | $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 | 79.4 yr ± 0.83 | 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 0.83 years of 79.4, 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