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

Campbell County — Aging Vulnerability Index by census tract

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Campbell County — Aging Vulnerability Index by census tract
Tract 501.00 — 97 (Higher)Tract 504.00 — 20 (Lower)Tract 505.00 — 19 (Lower)Tract 506.00 — 85 (Higher)Tract 511.01 — 46 (Middle)Tract 511.02 — 46 (Middle)Tract 512.00 — 57 (Upper-middle)Tract 513.00 — 27 (Lower-middle)Tract 519.01 — 47 (Middle)Tract 519.03 — 35 (Lower-middle)Tract 519.04 — 44 (Middle)Tract 520.01 — 65 (Upper-middle)Tract 520.02 — 64 (Upper-middle)Tract 521.00 — 25 (Lower-middle)Tract 522.00 — 21 (Lower)Tract 523.01 — 53 (Middle)Tract 523.02 — 13 (Lower)Tract 524.00 — 66 (Upper-middle)Tract 525.00 — 29 (Lower-middle)Tract 528.00 — 97 (Higher)Tract 529.00 — 81 (Higher)Tract 531.00 — 70 (Upper-middle)Tract 532.00 — 2 (Lower)Tract 533.01 — 89 (Higher)Tract 533.02 — 40 (Lower-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (2 to 21)Lower-middle (25 to 40)Middle (44 to 53)Upper-middle (57 to 70)Higher (81 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.

The panel shows the county overview. Click a tract for its own percentile and theme scores — the county overview stays visible alongside it for comparison.

← Back to county view
Median tract: 46th percentile (among all U.S. tracts).
These tracts span the 2nd percentile to the 97th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median5 (20%)
Above the median4 (16%)
Near the median7 (28%)
Below the median6 (24%)
Well below the median3 (12%)
Widest spread across these tracts: Housing & Transportation, 65+ — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked tracts here.
AVI ranks each tract'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.
Tract 528.00 — 97th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 501.00 — 97th percentile — Well above the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 533.01 — 89th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 506.00 — 85th percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 529.00 — 81st percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 531.00 — 70th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Tract 524.00 — 66th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 520.01 — 65th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 520.02 — 64th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (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.
Tract 512.00 — 57th percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Tract 523.01 — 53rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 519.01 — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 511.01 — 46th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 511.02 — 46th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 519.04 — 44th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 533.02 — 40th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 519.03 — 35th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Tract 525.00 — 29th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 513.00 — 27th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 521.00 — 25th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Tract 522.00 — 21st percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 504.00 — 20th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Tract 505.00 — 19th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 523.02 — 13th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Tract 532.00 — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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 tract against all U.S. tracts.
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 tract's flag count (shown per-tract above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top