About this index & how it's been checked

The Aging Vulnerability Index (AVI) is this platform's own construction, modeled on the CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index methodology but not a CDC product and not independently validated. It combines Census ACS data on the population 65 and older — demographic aging pressure, economic precarity, health/disability/isolation, and housing/transportation burden — into a single percentile ranking of U.S. counties. The underlying inputs are official Census data; the index construction and weighting are this platform's own.

Reference-county check

A face-validity check against real counties with well-documented age profiles — the same method used to calibrate this platform's seasonal-community threshold. Higher percentile = more aging-vulnerable.

  • ✓ Sumter County, FL — 79.8th percentile (expected HIGH, The Villages — often cited as the oldest-median-age U.S. county)
  • ✓ Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Citrus County, FL — 88.1th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Highlands County, FL — 95.9th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Brazos County, TX — 17.0th percentile (expected LOW, Texas A&M)
  • ✓ Story County, IA — 8.9th percentile (expected LOW, Iowa State)
  • ✓ Whitman County, WA — 10.3th percentile (expected LOW, Washington State University)
  • ✓ Tompkins County, NY — 7.6th percentile (expected LOW, Cornell)

Highest / lowest AVI by county population

Under 50,000

Highest
  1. Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
  2. De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
  3. Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
  4. Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
  5. Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
  1. Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
  2. Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
  3. Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
  4. Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
  5. Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)

50,000-99,999

Highest
  1. Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
  2. Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
  3. Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
  4. Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
  5. Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
  1. Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
  2. Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
  3. Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
  4. Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
  5. Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)

100,000-299,999

Highest
  1. Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
  2. Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
  3. Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
  4. Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
  5. Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
  1. Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
  2. Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
  3. Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
  4. St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
  5. Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)

300,000 and higher

Highest
  1. Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
  2. Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
  3. Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
  4. Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
  5. Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
  1. Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
  2. Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
  3. Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
  4. Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
  5. Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
Compare
NationallyWithin its state

AK — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
AK — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Aleutians East Borou — 20 (Middle)Aleutians West Censu — 1 (Lower)Anchorage Municipali — 6 (Lower-middle)Bethel Census Area — 36 (Upper-middle)Chugach Census Area — 2 (Lower)Copper River Census — 57 (Higher)Denali Borough — 3 (Lower)Dillingham Census Ar — 8 (Lower-middle)Fairbanks North Star — 5 (Lower)Haines Borough — 47 (Upper-middle)Hoonah-Angoon Census — 97 (Higher)Juneau City and Boro — 11 (Lower-middle)Kenai Peninsula Boro — 23 (Middle)Ketchikan Gateway Bo — 32 (Upper-middle)Kodiak Island Boroug — 6 (Lower)Kusilvak Census Area — 41 (Upper-middle)Lake and Peninsula B — 18 (Middle)Matanuska-Susitna Bo — 11 (Lower-middle)Nome Census Area — 20 (Middle)North Slope Borough — 10 (Lower-middle)Northwest Arctic Bor — 27 (Middle)Petersburg Borough — 48 (Upper-middle)Prince of Wales-Hyde — 66 (Higher)Sitka City and Borou — 20 (Middle)Skagway Municipality — 5 (Lower)Southeast Fairbanks — 35 (Upper-middle)Wrangell City and Bo — 74 (Higher)Yakutat City and Bor — 66 (Higher)Yukon-Koyukuk Census — 69 (Higher)Bristol Bay Borough — 15 (Lower-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (1 to 6)Lower-middle (6 to 15)Middle (18 to 27)Upper-middle (32 to 48)Higher (57 to 97)
Each unit is shaded by its Aging Vulnerability Index value and grouped into equal-count bands (quantiles) against the other units shown — lighter = lower, darker = higher. It ranks position among the units in view; it does not grade places, and the ranges shift with which units are shown.
The map is bounded to this parent geography — it shows the selected unit among its own siblings only, the same depth rule the drill-down uses. Shading ranks position on the measure among the units shown; it does not grade places.
Median county: 20th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 1st percentile to the 97th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Bristol Bay Borough is marked below — Well below the median.
Well above the median1 (3%)
Above the median4 (13%)
Near the median4 (13%)
Below the median6 (20%)
Well below the median15 (50%) ◀ Bristol Bay Borough
Widest spread across these counties: Economic Precarity, 65+ — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked counties here.
AVI ranks each county's position relative to a comparison set; it is not averaged into one number for the area, because percentiles do not average meaningfully. The distribution — median, range, and shape below — is the summary.

Bristol Bay Borough — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 57th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 57th percentile to the 57th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median0 (0%)
Above the median0 (0%)
Near the median1 (100%)
Below the median0 (0%)
Well below the median0 (0%)
AVI ranks each county subdivision's position relative to a comparison set; it is not averaged into one number for the area, because percentiles do not average meaningfully. The distribution — median, range, and shape below — is the summary.
Well above the median — 1 county (80th–100th percentile)
Hoonah-Angoon Census — 97th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 4 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Wrangell City and Bo — 74th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yukon-Koyukuk Census — 69th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Prince of Wales-Hyde — 66th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yakutat City and Bor — 66th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 4 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Copper River Census — 57th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Petersburg Borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Haines Borough — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kusilvak Census Area — 41st percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 6 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Bethel Census Area — 36th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Southeast Fairbanks — 35th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ketchikan Gateway Bo — 32nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Northwest Arctic Bor — 27th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kenai Peninsula Boro — 23rd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sitka City and Borou — 20th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 15 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Nome Census Area — 20th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Aleutians East Borou — 20th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake and Peninsula B — 18th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bristol Bay Borough — 15th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Juneau City and Boro — 11th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Matanuska-Susitna Bo — 11th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Slope Borough — 10th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dillingham Census Ar — 8th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Anchorage Municipali — 6th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Kodiak Island Boroug — 6th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Skagway Municipality — 5th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairbanks North Star — 5th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Denali Borough — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chugach Census Area — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Aleutians West Censu — 1st percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
AVI = a candidate Aging Vulnerability Index, computed by this platform from American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates, following the same method shape (percentile rank -> theme sum -> re-rank -> overall) as the CDC/ATSDR SVI this platform also recomputes — but AVI itself has no published ground truth to validate against. It is a first-cut, directional design. Percentiles rank each county against all U.S. counties.
Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top