ZIP code
96009
in Bieber, CaliforniaPopulation 307
48.34/ 100
Ranked #18,493 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 42%)
Ranked #1,179 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 31%)
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
5.8%
in the top 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS99thDefinition & 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 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
27.4 mi
in the top 2.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Park land
34.7%
in the top 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST88thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
7.9 days/year
in the bottom 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST12thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.7 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST6thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
1.9%
in the top 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS7thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
10.0%
in the bottom 9.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST13thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Home broadband subscription
97.2%
in the top 9.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Bieber, California (ZIP 96009) lands in the bottom 42% nationally (18,493rd) and the bottom 31% of California (1,179th).
A number of measures mark where this area is under strain: modeled fine-particle resides in the top 0.9% nationally, and walkability registers in the bottom 5.8% nationally. Slow internet speeds rests in the top 6.2% nationally. On the brighter side, modeled industrial-pollution burden stands in the bottom 1.1% nationally, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility lies in the top 2.5% nationally, and park land lands in the top 4.0% nationally. Modeled humid heat sits in the bottom 5.1% nationally, and expected annual loss is in the bottom 6.6% nationally. Unemployment settles 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.
Set beside the nearby areas, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. A note on the terms: 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. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 96056, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 66%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 51%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 41%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 57%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 43%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 28%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 36%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 27%
8%
Disability
healthier than 30%
7%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 60%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 20%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 32%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 17%
8%
Disability
healthier than 29%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 27%
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
96006
Californiashares a border
Score 44.77
Closest healthier
96056
Californiashares a border
Score 49.39
Similar health profile
27017
North Carolina93% similar profile
Score 47.83
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 | 27.8% | 24.6–31.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 36.6% | 32.6–41.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.6% | 8.7–10.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.5–9.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.2–9.9 |
| Depression among adults | 24.6% | 21.1–28.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.7% | 10.9–14.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.5% | 33.2–42.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.4% | 26.0–41.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.1% | 8.1–12.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.9% | 6.3–9.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.8% | 71.5–77.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.8% | 69.9–77.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.6% | 83.5–87.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.7% | 60.6–70.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.1% | 61.4–68.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.5% | 66.2–81.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.3% | 13.5–19.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.5% | 11.8–17.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.6% | 20.1–29.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.6% | 29.0–43.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.8% | 20.5–27.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.5% | 16.3–20.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.8% | 13.8–18.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.3% | 14.1–18.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.3% | 31.5–41.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.8% | 7.7–9.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.7–11.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.4% | 14.9–20.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.2–5.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.3–6.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.8% | 20.0–27.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.6% | 12.8–18.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 16.6% | 13.6–20.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.3% | 10.2–14.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.0% | 7.6–10.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.4% | 28.2–38.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 6.2–8.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 26.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 18.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 27.4% | 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 | 97.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 24.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.2% | 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 | 16.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 52.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 14.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 30.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $155,600 | $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 | 76.6 yr ± 1.01 | 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 1.01 years of 76.6, 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