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

CO — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
CO — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Adams County — 22 (Lower-middle)Alamosa County — 38 (Lower-middle)Arapahoe County — 25 (Lower-middle)Archuleta County — 87 (Higher)Baca County — 94 (Higher)Bent County — 62 (Upper-middle)Boulder County — 37 (Lower-middle)Chaffee County — 54 (Middle)Cheyenne County — 5 (Lower)Clear Creek County — 52 (Middle)Conejos County — 86 (Higher)Costilla County — 78 (Upper-middle)Crowley County — 46 (Middle)Custer County — 79 (Upper-middle)Delta County — 100 (Higher)Denver County — 41 (Middle)Dolores County — 90 (Higher)Douglas County — 3 (Lower)Eagle County — 0 (Lower)Elbert County — 29 (Lower-middle)El Paso County — 14 (Lower)Fremont County — 73 (Upper-middle)Garfield County — 21 (Lower-middle)Gilpin County — 63 (Upper-middle)Grand County — 6 (Lower)Gunnison County — 11 (Lower)Hinsdale County — 32 (Lower-middle)Huerfano County — 95 (Higher)Jackson County — 81 (Higher)Jefferson County — 33 (Lower-middle)Kiowa County — 46 (Middle)Kit Carson County — 56 (Middle)Lake County — 16 (Lower)La Plata County — 35 (Lower-middle)Larimer County — 44 (Middle)Las Animas County — 97 (Higher)Lincoln County — 51 (Middle)Logan County — 59 (Middle)Mesa County — 76 (Upper-middle)Mineral County — 70 (Upper-middle)Moffat County — 10 (Lower)Montezuma County — 83 (Higher)Montrose County — 84 (Higher)Morgan County — 57 (Middle)Otero County — 89 (Higher)Ouray County — 43 (Middle)Park County — 40 (Middle)Phillips County — 92 (Higher)Pitkin County — 30 (Lower-middle)Prowers County — 98 (Higher)Pueblo County — 75 (Upper-middle)Rio Blanco County — 13 (Lower)Rio Grande County — 68 (Upper-middle)Routt County — 17 (Lower)Saguache County — 67 (Upper-middle)San Juan County — 24 (Lower-middle)San Miguel County — 8 (Lower)Sedgwick County — 60 (Upper-middle)Summit County — 2 (Lower)Teller County — 46 (Middle)Washington County — 65 (Upper-middle)Weld County — 27 (Lower-middle)Yuma County — 71 (Upper-middle)Broomfield County — 19 (Lower-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 17)Lower-middle (19 to 38)Middle (40 to 59)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: 48th percentile (among counties in CO).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Broomfield County is marked below — Well below the median.
Well above the median13 (20%)
Above the median13 (20%)
Near the median12 (19%)
Below the median13 (20%)
Well below the median13 (20%) ◀ Broomfield 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.

Broomfield County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 40th percentile (among county subdivisions in CO).
These county subdivisions span the 40th percentile to the 40th 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 — 13 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Delta County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Prowers County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged 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); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Las Animas County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Huerfano County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Baca County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Phillips County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dolores County — 90th 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Otero County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Archuleta County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conejos County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montrose County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montezuma County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Jackson County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 13 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Custer County — 79th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Costilla County — 78th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Mesa County — 76th percentile — Above 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 Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pueblo County — 75th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fremont County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yuma County — 71st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mineral County — 70th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rio Grande County — 68th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Saguache County — 67th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Washington County — 65th 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gilpin County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bent County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sedgwick County — 60th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (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.
Near the median — 12 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Logan County — 59th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Morgan County — 57th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kit Carson County — 56th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chaffee County — 54th percentile — Near the median 4 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.
Clear Creek County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lincoln County — 51st percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well 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.
Crowley County — 46th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kiowa County — 46th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Teller County — 46th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Larimer County — 44th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Ouray County — 43rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Denver County — 41st percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Park County — 40th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alamosa County — 38th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Boulder County — 37th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
La Plata County — 35th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jefferson County — 33rd percentile — 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.
Hinsdale County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged 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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pitkin County — 30th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Elbert County — 29th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Weld County — 27th 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.
Arapahoe County — 25th percentile — 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.
San Juan County — 24th percentile — Below the median 7 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.
Adams County — 22nd 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.
Garfield County — 21st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (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 — 13 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Broomfield County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Routt County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Lake County — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
El Paso County — 14th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Rio Blanco County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gunnison County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Moffat County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Miguel County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grand County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.
Cheyenne County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Douglas County — 3rd 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.
Summit County — 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.
Eagle County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ 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 CO.
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