Snapshot
2024-12-31
Methodology v1.1-acs5-2024
National City Ranking
Most Financially Pressured Cities
These cities have the lowest modeled sustainability scores among high-confidence, place-specific city geographies. The default table excludes county fallbacks, incomplete component signals, and places under 5,000 residents.
Rows
30
Comparison-ready rows shown on this page.
Leading Location
Isla Vista
CA • Cost Pressure Score
Ranking Visual
Top Results
Bars show relative pressure intensity for the ranking signal used on this page.
#1 Isla Vista
Santa Barbara County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#2 Monsey
Rockland County • NY • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#3 Port Jervis
Orange County • NY • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#4 Anderson
Shasta County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#5 Magalia
Butte County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#6 El Cajon
San Diego County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#7 Holiday City-Berkeley
Ocean County • NJ • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#8 Loomis
Placer County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#9 Topanga
Los Angeles County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
#10 Lakeport
Lake County • CA • Increasing
High confidence • Place
Methodology Note
How This Ranking Is Calculated
Ranked by overall Cost Pressure Score, where lower scores indicate higher pressure. Results require direct Census Place coverage, complete required inputs, and a population estimate of at least 5,000.
Each row links to the canonical geography report so readers can inspect component breakdown, trend direction, driver context, and methodology notes without creating duplicate report URLs.
Full Table
Most Financially Pressured Cities
Canonical ranking page
| Rank | Location | Score | Trend | Coverage | National Percentile | Ranking Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Isla Vista Santa Barbara County • CA | 6 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 13,717 | 0th | 6 score |
| #2 | Monsey Rockland County • NY | 13 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 27,787 | 0th | 13 score |
| #3 | Port Jervis Orange County • NY | 14 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,709 | 0th | 14 score |
| #4 | Anderson Shasta County • CA | 15 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 11,282 | 0th | 15 score |
| #5 | Magalia Butte County • CA | 15 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,784 | 0th | 15 score |
| #6 | El Cajon San Diego County • CA | 16 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 104,909 | 0th | 16 score |
| #7 | Holiday City-Berkeley Ocean County • NJ | 16 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 12,896 | 0th | 16 score |
| #8 | Loomis Placer County • CA | 17 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,809 | 0th | 17 score |
| #9 | Topanga Los Angeles County • CA | 17 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,781 | 0th | 17 score |
| #10 | Lakeport Lake County • CA | 17 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,085 | 0th | 17 score |
| #11 | Fort Bragg Mendocino County • CA | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,001 | 0th | 18 score |
| #12 | Grass Valley Nevada County • CA | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 14,126 | 0th | 18 score |
| #13 | Prospect Park Passaic County • NJ | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,286 | 0th | 18 score |
| #14 | Riverdale Cook County • IL | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 10,515 | 0th | 18 score |
| #15 | El Rio Ventura County • CA | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,343 | 0th | 18 score |
| #16 | Lamont Kern County • CA | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 13,481 | 0th | 18 score |
| #17 | Los Banos Merced County • CA | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 46,776 | 0th | 18 score |
| #18 | Sealy Austin County • TX | 18 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,933 | 0th | 18 score |
| #19 | Discovery Bay Contra Costa County • CA | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 15,243 | 0th | 19 score |
| #20 | West Yarmouth Barnstable County • MA | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,323 | 0th | 19 score |
| #21 | Yardville Mercer County • NJ | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 6,266 | 0th | 19 score |
| #22 | West Hazleton Luzerne County • PA | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,156 | 0th | 19 score |
| #23 | Darby Delaware County • PA | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 10,664 | 0th | 19 score |
| #24 | Newton Sussex County • NJ | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,336 | 0th | 19 score |
| #25 | Pinon Hills San Bernardino County • CA | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 7,149 | 0th | 19 score |
| #26 | Cape May Court House Cape May County • NJ | 19 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 5,375 | 0th | 19 score |
| #27 | Los Alamitos Orange County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 11,784 | 0th | 20 score |
| #28 | Lemon Hill Sacramento County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 14,942 | 0th | 20 score |
| #29 | Plumas Lake Yuba County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 8,424 | 1st | 20 score |
| #30 | Chowchilla Madera County • CA | 20 | Increasing | High confidence • Place Population 18,876 | 1st | 20 score |
Citation
How To Cite This Index
Cite as: CostPressureIQ Household Cost Pressure Index, methodology v1.1-acs5-2024, annual baseline 2024-12-31, covering 34,160 scored U.S. geographies. Comparison window: 2020–2024 ACS 5-year estimates compared with 2015–2019 ACS 5-year estimates.
Snapshot Date
2024-12-31
Methodology Version
v1.1-acs5-2024
Scored Coverage
34,160 geographies
Source note: the annual baseline preserves component IDs and score polarity while documenting source period, geographic resolution, raw drivers, and any fallback. Current Pressure Pulse observations are displayed separately and never revise the annual score.
Ranked by overall Cost Pressure Score, where lower scores indicate higher pressure. Results require direct Census Place coverage, complete required inputs, and a population estimate of at least 5,000.