ZIP code
95635
in Greenwood, CaliforniaPopulation 1,298
49.88/ 100
Ranked #16,413 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 49%)
Ranked #1,078 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 37%)
Ranked #87 of 122 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA ZIPs (bottom 29%)
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.
Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
5.2%
in the top 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.0%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
48.7%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
40 per million
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST73rdUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST11thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Park land
19.7%
in the top 7.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST80thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
71%
in the top 8.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
93%
in the top 11.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS88thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›The read
Judged by its overall standing, Greenwood, California (ZIP 95635) sits in the bottom 49% nationally (16,413th) and the bottom 37% of California (1,078th).
A demanding profile, and several measures drive it: modeled fine-particle sits in the top 1.0% nationally, housing-cost burden stands in the top 3.6% nationally, and modeled air-toxics cancer risk resides in the top 4.5% nationally. Fiber broadband sits at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. On the stronger side, modeled arsenic stands in the bottom 2.6% nationally, and industrial-pollution burden resides in the bottom 4.5% nationally. Park land sits in the top 7.1% nationally. Unemployment stands at the national minimum, shared with about 15% of ZIPs. Households without a vehicle resides at the national minimum, shared with about 16% of ZIPs. Modeled tree cover sits in the top 8.7% nationally.
Placed beside its immediate neighbors, park land 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. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 95614, 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. 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 61%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 63%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 67%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 54%
21%
Disability
healthier than 44%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 14%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 37%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 36%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 21%
5%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 58%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 43%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 59%
13%
Disability
healthier than 42%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 49%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 22%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 39%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 26%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 14%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 72%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 44%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 49%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 12%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 15%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 28%
8%
Disability
healthier than 25%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 15%
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
95614
Californiashares a border
Score 58.14
Closest healthier
95631
Californiashares a border
Score 52.11
Similar health profile
97801
Oregon92% similar profile
Score 49.76
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 | 29.5% | 26.2–33.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 36.2% | 32.1–40.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.3% | 9.2–11.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.5% | 9.3–11.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.8% | 6.9–8.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.0% | 6.8–9.4 |
| Depression among adults | 24.1% | 20.7–27.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.0% | 10.3–13.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.2% | 33.1–41.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 30.2% | 23.7–37.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.2% | 11.5–17.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.3% | 5.1–7.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.5% | 72.1–78.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.2% | 70.1–78.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.6% | 84.5–88.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.4% | 62.4–72.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 63.1% | 59.4–66.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 70.9% | 62.5–78.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.2% | 14.2–20.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.9% | 11.4–16.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 22.6% | 18.7–26.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.3% | 28.4–40.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.5% | 18.4–24.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.6–19.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.5% | 13.5–17.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.2–17.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.4% | 29.9–39.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.1–9.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.0% | 7.7–10.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.6% | 14.1–19.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.6–4.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.4–5.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.8% | 20.1–27.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.1% | 10.7–15.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 13.1% | 10.7–15.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.6% | 8.9–12.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.5–8.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.2% | 28.0–38.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.1% | 5.2–7.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 5.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 20.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 30.5% | 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 | 90.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 48.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 93.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 73.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 24.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 49.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $101,250 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $485,200 | $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 | 83.3 yr ± 1.94 | 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 1.94 years of 83.3, 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