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

FL — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
FL — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Alachua County — 36 (Lower-middle)Baker County — 0 (Lower)Bay County — 17 (Lower)Bradford County — 33 (Lower-middle)Brevard County — 58 (Middle)Broward County — 52 (Middle)Calhoun County — 48 (Middle)Charlotte County — 95 (Higher)Citrus County — 83 (Higher)Clay County — 9 (Lower)Collier County — 91 (Higher)Columbia County — 38 (Lower-middle)DeSoto County — 97 (Higher)Dixie County — 76 (Upper-middle)Duval County — 30 (Lower-middle)Escambia County — 42 (Middle)Flagler County — 92 (Higher)Franklin County — 67 (Upper-middle)Gadsden County — 45 (Middle)Gilchrist County — 62 (Upper-middle)Glades County — 47 (Middle)Gulf County — 14 (Lower)Hamilton County — 32 (Lower-middle)Hardee County — 35 (Lower-middle)Hernando County — 88 (Higher)Highlands County — 100 (Higher)Hillsborough County — 24 (Lower-middle)Holmes County — 27 (Lower-middle)Indian River County — 89 (Higher)Jackson County — 26 (Lower-middle)Jefferson County — 59 (Middle)Lafayette County — 85 (Higher)Lake County — 56 (Middle)Lee County — 82 (Higher)Leon County — 18 (Lower)Levy County — 98 (Higher)Liberty County — 8 (Lower)Madison County — 39 (Middle)Manatee County — 68 (Upper-middle)Marion County — 86 (Higher)Martin County — 73 (Upper-middle)Miami-Dade County — 53 (Middle)Monroe County — 61 (Upper-middle)Nassau County — 23 (Lower-middle)Okaloosa County — 20 (Lower-middle)Okeechobee County — 50 (Middle)Orange County — 6 (Lower)Osceola County — 21 (Lower-middle)Palm Beach County — 79 (Upper-middle)Pasco County — 64 (Upper-middle)Pinellas County — 94 (Higher)Polk County — 44 (Middle)Putnam County — 74 (Upper-middle)St. Johns County — 11 (Lower)St. Lucie County — 71 (Upper-middle)Santa Rosa County — 5 (Lower)Sarasota County — 77 (Upper-middle)Seminole County — 12 (Lower)Sumter County — 65 (Upper-middle)Suwannee County — 55 (Middle)Taylor County — 68 (Upper-middle)Union County — 2 (Lower)Volusia County — 80 (Higher)Wakulla County — 3 (Lower)Walton County — 15 (Lower)Washington County — 29 (Lower-middle)Hendry County — 41 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 18)Lower-middle (20 to 38)Middle (39 to 59)Upper-middle (61 to 79)Higher (80 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 FL).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Hendry County is marked below — Near the median.
Well above the median14 (21%)
Above the median13 (19%)
Near the median13 (19%) ◀ Hendry County
Below the median13 (19%)
Well below the median14 (21%)
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.

Hendry County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 45th percentile (among county subdivisions in FL).
These county subdivisions span the 30th percentile to the 60th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median0 (0%)
Above the median0 (0%)
Near the median1 (50%)
Below the median1 (50%)
Well below the median0 (0%)
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 — 14 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Highlands County — 100th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Levy County — 98th 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.
DeSoto County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Charlotte County — 95th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Pinellas County — 94th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Flagler County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Collier County — 91st percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Indian River County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hernando County — 88th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Marion County — 86th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Lafayette County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Citrus County — 83rd 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 (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lee County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 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+.
Volusia County — 80th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Above the median — 13 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Palm Beach County — 79th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Sarasota County — 77th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Dixie County — 76th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Putnam County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Martin County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 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+.
St. Lucie County — 71st percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
Manatee County — 68th percentile — Above the median 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.
Taylor County — 68th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Franklin County — 67th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sumter County — 65th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Pasco County — 64th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Gilchrist County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 2 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.
Monroe County — 61st percentile — Above the median 1 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 — 13 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Jefferson County — 59th percentile — Near 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 (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brevard County — 58th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Lake County — 56th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Suwannee County — 55th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Miami-Dade County — 53rd percentile — Near 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+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Broward County — 52nd percentile — Near 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.
Okeechobee County — 50th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Calhoun County — 48th percentile — Near 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Glades County — 47th 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.
Gadsden County — 45th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Polk County — 44th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
Escambia County — 42nd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Hendry County — 41st percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Madison County — 39th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Columbia County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alachua County — 36th percentile — Below the median 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.
Hardee County — 35th percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Bradford County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hamilton County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Duval County — 30th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Washington County — 29th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Holmes County — 27th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jackson County — 26th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Hillsborough County — 24th 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.
Nassau County — 23rd percentile — 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.
Osceola County — 21st percentile — Below the median 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.
Well below the median — 14 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Okaloosa County — 20th percentile — Well 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.
Leon County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bay County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Walton County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gulf County — 14th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Seminole County — 12th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
St. Johns County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clay County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Liberty County — 8th 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.
Orange County — 6th 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.
Santa Rosa County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Wakulla County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Union County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Baker County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ 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 FL.
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