ZIP code
96058
in Macdoel, CaliforniaPopulation 661
33.87/ 100
Ranked #29,779 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 7.2%)
Ranked #1,630 of 1,719 California ZIPs (bottom 5.2%)
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
9.3%
in the top 0.09% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Fair or poor health
35.3%
in the top 2.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Unemployment rate
23.1%
in the top 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
7.6%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
10.3%
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
24.5%
in the top 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Park land
39.2%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
13.6%
in the top 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
65.5%
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST2ndUS4thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Distance to a nursing home
16.2 mi
in the top 4.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare- or Medicaid-certified nursing home.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Health need and barriers to care documented here
On our reading, this ZIP code carries the overlap at its severe level: severe means at least four of the six health-need readings and at least four of the six access barriers apply to the same place.
These are two separate readings of public data that both apply to this place — never a claim that one causes the other, never a severity score, and never a statement about any person who lives here.
Health need documented here
- People without health insurance
- Food insecurity
- Housing insecurity
- Adults reporting fair or poor health
- Chronic conditions
Barriers to reaching care
- Distance to the nearest emergency room
- Thin local supply of doctors
- Thin local supply of pharmacies
- Households with no vehicle
A reading appears below only where this ZIP code is among the most-affected 10% of US ZIP codes on it — one national bar, the same for every ZIP in the country.
See the full care-deserts analysis →The read
By the composite health measure, Macdoel, California (ZIP 96058) ranks in the bottom 7.2% nationally (29,779th) and the bottom 5.2% of California (1,630th).
What defines this place in the numbers is worth naming first: modeled fine-particle resides in the top 0.09% nationally, and fair or poor health registers in the top 2.5% nationally. Unemployment rests in the top 1.5% nationally, and modeled self-care disability stands in the top 3.9% nationally. Modeled vision disability lies in the top 4.3% nationally, mobility disability lands in the top 4.2% nationally, and independent living disability sits in the top 5.0% nationally. Home broadband subscription is in the bottom 4.2% nationally, and distance to a nursing home settles in the top 4.8% nationally. More encouragingly, park land resides in the top 3.4% nationally.
Read against the ZIPs closest to it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To spell things out, fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Close by, ZIP 96064, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall. On other measures, the area also shows documented health need overlapping with barriers to reaching care, sitting in the most-affected 10% of US ZIP codes on several need measures and several access barriers.
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 93%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 17%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 2%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 7%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 24%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 28%
8%
Disability
healthier than 3%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 47%
14%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 3%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 22%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 12%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 18%
8%
Disability
healthier than 3%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 16%
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
96023
Californiashares a border
Score 29.32
Closest healthier
96064
Californiashares a border
Score 47.89
Similar health profile
87317
New Mexico97% similar profile
Score 23.56
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 | 30.9% | 27.4–34.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 41.3% | 36.8–45.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.0% | 8.1–9.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.7% | 9.4–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–11.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.6% | 10.1–13.2 |
| Depression among adults | 23.2% | 19.6–26.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.6% | 15.5–20.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.7% | 36.0–45.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.1% | 28.0–44.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.7% | 5.1–6.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 16.0% | 13.0–19.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 18.2% | 15.2–21.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.6% | 72.4–78.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 72.6% | 68.5–76.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.5% | 80.3–84.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 56.7% | 51.0–62.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 51.5% | 47.5–55.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 71.1% | 62.2–78.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 11.4–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 19.3% | 16.6–22.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 35.6% | 30.4–41.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.4% | 28.7–42.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 35.3% | 31.4–39.3 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.3% | 17.1–21.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 20.5% | 18.3–23.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.6% | 18.2–23.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 44.9% | 40.0–49.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–12.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 13.6% | 12.0–15.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 24.5% | 21.6–27.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.6% | 6.8–8.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.2–11.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 28.3% | 24.4–32.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 29.0% | 25.0–33.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 30.4% | 26.5–34.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.6% | 17.9–23.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 14.5% | 12.7–16.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.3% | 30.1–40.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 12.0% | 10.5–13.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 23.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 28.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 29.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 23.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 12.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 65.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 18.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 65.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 9.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 21.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 57.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 13.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 39.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $47,266 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $143,100 | $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 | 80.3 yr ± 1.84 | 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 1.84 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