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 — 16 (Lower)Alpine County — 0 (Lower)Amador County — 72 (Upper-middle)Butte County — 26 (Lower-middle)Calaveras County — 88 (Higher)Colusa County — 74 (Upper-middle)Contra Costa County — 28 (Lower-middle)Del Norte County — 47 (Middle)El Dorado County — 61 (Upper-middle)Fresno County — 58 (Middle)Glenn County — 42 (Middle)Humboldt County — 65 (Upper-middle)Imperial County — 81 (Higher)Inyo County — 75 (Upper-middle)Kern County — 32 (Lower-middle)Kings County — 37 (Lower-middle)Lake County — 89 (Higher)Lassen County — 63 (Upper-middle)Los Angeles County — 49 (Middle)Madera County — 21 (Lower-middle)Marin County — 25 (Lower-middle)Mariposa County — 84 (Higher)Mendocino County — 96 (Higher)Merced County — 70 (Upper-middle)Modoc County — 95 (Higher)Mono County — 60 (Upper-middle)Monterey County — 4 (Lower)Napa County — 40 (Middle)Nevada County — 68 (Upper-middle)Placer County — 53 (Middle)Plumas County — 100 (Higher)Riverside County — 33 (Lower-middle)Sacramento County — 46 (Middle)San Benito County — 2 (Lower)San Bernardino Count — 9 (Lower)San Diego County — 11 (Lower)San Francisco County — 67 (Upper-middle)San Joaquin County — 7 (Lower)San Luis Obispo Coun — 56 (Middle)San Mateo County — 18 (Lower)Santa Barbara County — 39 (Lower-middle)Santa Clara County — 5 (Lower)Santa Cruz County — 14 (Lower)Shasta County — 82 (Higher)Sierra County — 79 (Upper-middle)Siskiyou County — 86 (Higher)Solano County — 19 (Lower-middle)Sonoma County — 54 (Middle)Stanislaus County — 44 (Middle)Sutter County — 77 (Upper-middle)Tehama County — 91 (Higher)Trinity County — 98 (Higher)Tulare County — 23 (Lower-middle)Tuolumne County — 93 (Higher)Ventura County — 35 (Lower-middle)Yolo County — 30 (Lower-middle)Yuba County — 51 (Middle)Orange County — 12 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 18)Lower-middle (19 to 39)Middle (40 to 58)Upper-middle (60 to 79)Higher (81 to 100)
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: 50th percentile (among counties in CA).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Orange County is marked below — Well below the median.
Well above the median12 (21%)
Above the median11 (19%)
Near the median12 (21%)
Below the median11 (19%)
Well below the median12 (21%) ◀ Orange County
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.

Orange County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 26th percentile (among county subdivisions in CA).
These county subdivisions span the 7th percentile to the 73rd percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median0 (0%)
Above the median2 (29%)
Near the median0 (0%)
Below the median3 (43%)
Well below the median2 (29%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Economic Precarity, 65+ — 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 — 12 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Plumas County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Trinity County — 98th 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 (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mendocino County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Modoc County — 95th 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) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tuolumne County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Tehama County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Calaveras County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ 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 Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mariposa County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shasta County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Imperial County — 81st percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Above the median — 11 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Sierra County — 79th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sutter County — 77th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Inyo County — 75th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Colusa County — 74th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Amador County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Merced County — 70th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Nevada County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Francisco County — 67th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Humboldt County — 65th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lassen County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
El Dorado County — 61st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 12 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Mono County — 60th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Fresno County — 58th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
San Luis Obispo Coun — 56th 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sonoma County — 54th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Placer County — 53rd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Yuba County — 51st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Los Angeles County — 49th percentile — Near 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.
Del Norte County — 47th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sacramento County — 46th percentile — Near 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.
Stanislaus County — 44th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Glenn County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Napa County — 40th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Below the median — 11 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Santa Barbara County — 39th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Kings County — 37th percentile — 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+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ventura County — 35th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Riverside County — 33rd percentile — 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.
Kern County — 32nd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Yolo County — 30th 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.
Contra Costa County — 28th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Butte County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marin County — 25th 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.
Tulare County — 23rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Madera County — 21st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 12 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Solano County — 19th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Mateo County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Alameda County — 16th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Santa Cruz County — 14th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Orange County — 12th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Diego County — 11th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Bernardino Count — 9th percentile — Well below the median 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.
San Joaquin County — 7th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Santa Clara County — 5th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Monterey County — 4th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
San Benito County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alpine County — 0th 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 counties in CA.
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