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

CA — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
CA — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Alameda County — 12 (Lower)Alpine County — 1 (Lower)Amador County — 63 (Upper-middle)Butte County — 16 (Lower-middle)Calaveras County — 89 (Higher)Colusa County — 44 (Upper-middle)Contra Costa County — 18 (Lower-middle)Del Norte County — 27 (Middle)El Dorado County — 48 (Upper-middle)Fresno County — 33 (Middle)Glenn County — 21 (Lower-middle)Humboldt County — 30 (Middle)Imperial County — 48 (Upper-middle)Inyo County — 73 (Higher)Kern County — 25 (Middle)Lake County — 88 (Higher)Lassen County — 29 (Middle)Los Angeles County — 20 (Lower-middle)Madera County — 19 (Lower-middle)Marin County — 38 (Upper-middle)Mariposa County — 79 (Higher)Mendocino County — 91 (Higher)Merced County — 39 (Upper-middle)Modoc County — 85 (Higher)Mono County — 34 (Upper-middle)Monterey County — 6 (Lower)Napa County — 32 (Middle)Nevada County — 68 (Higher)Orange County — 11 (Lower)Placer County — 37 (Upper-middle)Plumas County — 97 (Higher)Riverside County — 17 (Lower-middle)Sacramento County — 23 (Middle)San Benito County — 7 (Lower)San Bernardino Count — 13 (Lower)San Diego County — 11 (Lower)San Francisco County — 34 (Middle)San Joaquin County — 9 (Lower)San Luis Obispo Coun — 45 (Upper-middle)San Mateo County — 13 (Lower)Santa Barbara County — 19 (Lower-middle)Santa Clara County — 7 (Lower)Santa Cruz County — 16 (Lower-middle)Shasta County — 63 (Upper-middle)Sierra County — 66 (Upper-middle)Siskiyou County — 86 (Higher)Solano County — 14 (Lower)Sonoma County — 44 (Upper-middle)Stanislaus County — 21 (Lower-middle)Sutter County — 34 (Middle)Tehama County — 83 (Higher)Trinity County — 97 (Higher)Tulare County — 20 (Lower-middle)Tuolumne County — 94 (Higher)Ventura County — 21 (Lower-middle)Yolo County — 20 (Lower-middle)Yuba County — 28 (Middle)Kings County — 31 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (1 to 14)Lower-middle (16 to 21)Middle (23 to 34)Upper-middle (34 to 66)Higher (68 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: 31st 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.
Kings County is marked below — Below the median.
Well above the median9 (16%)
Above the median6 (10%)
Near the median5 (9%)
Below the median21 (36%) ◀ Kings County
Well below the median17 (29%)
Widest spread across these counties: Demographic Aging Pressure — 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.

Kings County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 36th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 11th percentile to the 73rd percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median0 (0%)
Above the median2 (33%)
Near the median1 (17%)
Below the median0 (0%)
Well below the median3 (50%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Health, Disability & Isolation — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked county subdivisions here.
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 — 9 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Trinity County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plumas County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tuolumne County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mendocino County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Calaveras County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Siskiyou County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Modoc County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tehama County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 6 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Mariposa County — 79th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Inyo County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nevada County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sierra County — 66th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shasta County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Amador County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 5 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Imperial County — 48th percentile — Near the median 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.
El Dorado County — 48th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Luis Obispo Coun — 45th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Colusa County — 44th percentile — Near 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.
Sonoma County — 44th percentile — Near the median 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.
Below the median — 21 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Merced County — 39th percentile — Below the median 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.
Marin County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Placer County — 37th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Mono County — 34th percentile — Below the median 5 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+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sutter County — 34th percentile — Below the median 1 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.
San Francisco County — 34th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Fresno County — 33rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Napa County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kings County — 31st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Humboldt County — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Lassen County — 29th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Yuba County — 28th 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); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Del Norte County — 27th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Kern County — 25th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Sacramento County — 23rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Ventura County — 21st percentile — Below the median 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.
Stanislaus County — 21st percentile — Below the median 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.
Glenn County — 21st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Yolo County — 20th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Los Angeles County — 20th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Tulare County — 20th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Well below the median — 17 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Madera County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Santa Barbara County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Contra Costa County — 18th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Riverside County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Butte County — 16th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Santa Cruz County — 16th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Solano County — 14th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Mateo County — 13th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Bernardino Count — 13th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Alameda County — 12th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Orange County — 11th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Diego County — 11th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Joaquin County — 9th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Santa Clara County — 7th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Benito County — 7th 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.
Monterey County — 6th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Alpine County — 1st percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, 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