ZIP code
95747
in Roseville, CaliforniaPopulation 83,902
61.78/ 100
Ranked #3,652 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 11.4%)
Ranked #423 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 25%)
Ranked #11 of 122 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA ZIPs (top 9.1%)
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 per million
in the top 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Subsidized affordable housing
974 units
in the top 1.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
2.5%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST72ndUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Dry extreme heat
86.3 days/year
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Median household income
$136,750
in the top 5.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST82ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Obesity
26.3%
in the bottom 7.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST34thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.5%
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST21stUS5thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
62 µg/L
in the top 8.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
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 ›Tooth loss
5.9%
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST14thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
97.1%
in the top 9.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST83rdUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, ZIP 95747, one of several in Roseville, California ranks in the top 11.4% healthiest ZIPs nationally (3,652nd) and the top 25% of California (423rd).
The picture here is genuinely mixed, with readings on both sides: subsidized affordable housing settles in the top 1.5% nationally, and household income resides in the top 5.7% nationally. Modeled obesity registers in the bottom 7.8% nationally, and energy burden rests in the bottom 4.7% nationally. Modeled tooth loss stands in the bottom 4.4% nationally, and home broadband subscription lies in the top 9.8% nationally. On the other side, modeled air-toxics cancer risk lands in the top 1.2% nationally, fine-particle sits in the top 3.1% nationally, and extreme heat is in the top 3.9% nationally. Lithium in drinking water settles in the top 8.5% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, 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. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Close by, ZIP 95765, less than a tenth of a mile away, 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 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
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 88%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 61%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
Disability
healthier than 87%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 69%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 12%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 64%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 87%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 78%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 83%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 75%
8%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 40%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 18%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 62%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 73%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 84%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 91%
8%
Disability
healthier than 86%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 56%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 40%
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
3 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 what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 80.3 ± 0.9 years. A median household income of $136,750 predicts 81.3 years — 1.1 years below.
Ranked #1,483 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 12.0; chronic-disease standing 87.7 — 76 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,894 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 49.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 80.3 ± 0.9 years.
Ranked #217 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
95621
Californiashares a border
Score 49.16
Closest healthier
95765
Californialess than 0.1 mi away
Score 63.24
Similar health profile
90803
California99% similar profile
Score 64.88
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 | 23.6% | 20.8–26.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.6% | 27.9–35.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.7% | 7.9–9.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.9–6.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
| Depression among adults | 20.8% | 17.8–24.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.5% | 8.2–10.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.8% | 31.8–40.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 26.3% | 20.8–32.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.7–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.9% | 4.6–7.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.0% | 4.3–5.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.7% | 69.4–75.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.6% | 70.9–78.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.8% | 87.4–90.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 63.2% | 58.4–67.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.2% | 68.2–74.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.6% | 73.1–85.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 13.2–19.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.1% | 7.7–10.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.6% | 15.6–22.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.6% | 26.4–37.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.8% | 13.8–17.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.1% | 13.4–16.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.8% | 10.5–13.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.6% | 10.3–12.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 25.5% | 22.2–29.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.3–6.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.4% | 5.8–7.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–12.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.9% | 20.6–27.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 8.3–11.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.4% | 7.2–9.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.5–10.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.2% | 27.4–36.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.8% | 4.2–5.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 1.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 46.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 97.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 31.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 80.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 17.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 47.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 17.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 40.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $136,750 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $687,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,182 | $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 | 80.3 yr ± 0.46 | 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 0.46 years of 80.3, 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