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

MI — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
MI — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Alcona County — 89 (Higher)Alger County — 71 (Upper-middle)Allegan County — 8 (Lower)Alpena County — 87 (Higher)Antrim County — 61 (Middle)Arenac County — 88 (Higher)Baraga County — 72 (Upper-middle)Barry County — 33 (Lower-middle)Benzie County — 58 (Middle)Berrien County — 80 (Upper-middle)Branch County — 46 (Lower-middle)Calhoun County — 38 (Lower-middle)Cass County — 77 (Upper-middle)Charlevoix County — 73 (Upper-middle)Cheboygan County — 84 (Upper-middle)Chippewa County — 45 (Lower-middle)Clare County — 96 (Higher)Clinton County — 15 (Lower)Crawford County — 81 (Upper-middle)Delta County — 87 (Higher)Dickinson County — 68 (Upper-middle)Eaton County — 45 (Lower-middle)Emmet County — 59 (Middle)Genesee County — 47 (Lower-middle)Gladwin County — 93 (Higher)Gogebic County — 88 (Higher)Grand Traverse Count — 30 (Lower-middle)Gratiot County — 23 (Lower)Hillsdale County — 64 (Middle)Houghton County — 20 (Lower)Huron County — 88 (Higher)Ingham County — 19 (Lower)Ionia County — 5 (Lower)Iosco County — 95 (Higher)Iron County — 91 (Higher)Isabella County — 7 (Lower)Jackson County — 27 (Lower-middle)Kalamazoo County — 10 (Lower)Kalkaska County — 55 (Middle)Kent County — 8 (Lower)Keweenaw County — 73 (Upper-middle)Lake County — 95 (Higher)Lapeer County — 35 (Lower-middle)Leelanau County — 56 (Middle)Lenawee County — 21 (Lower)Livingston County — 11 (Lower)Luce County — 32 (Lower-middle)Mackinac County — 91 (Higher)Macomb County — 39 (Lower-middle)Manistee County — 67 (Upper-middle)Marquette County — 26 (Lower)Mason County — 83 (Upper-middle)Mecosta County — 66 (Middle)Menominee County — 90 (Higher)Midland County — 51 (Middle)Missaukee County — 58 (Middle)Monroe County — 39 (Lower-middle)Montcalm County — 36 (Lower-middle)Montmorency County — 87 (Higher)Muskegon County — 34 (Lower-middle)Newaygo County — 52 (Middle)Oakland County — 25 (Lower)Oceana County — 59 (Middle)Ogemaw County — 86 (Upper-middle)Ontonagon County — 75 (Upper-middle)Osceola County — 78 (Upper-middle)Oscoda County — 99 (Higher)Otsego County — 21 (Lower)Ottawa County — 8 (Lower)Presque Isle County — 88 (Higher)Roscommon County — 90 (Higher)Saginaw County — 72 (Upper-middle)St. Clair County — 49 (Lower-middle)St. Joseph County — 65 (Middle)Sanilac County — 84 (Upper-middle)Schoolcraft County — 77 (Upper-middle)Shiawassee County — 41 (Lower-middle)Tuscola County — 59 (Middle)Van Buren County — 42 (Lower-middle)Washtenaw County — 8 (Lower)Wayne County — 51 (Middle)Wexford County — 52 (Middle)Bay County — 64 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (5 to 26)Lower-middle (27 to 49)Middle (51 to 66)Upper-middle (67 to 86)Higher (87 to 99)
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: 59th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 5th percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Bay County is marked below — Above the median.
Well above the median22 (27%)
Above the median17 (20%) ◀ Bay County
Near the median18 (22%)
Below the median15 (18%)
Well below the median11 (13%)
Widest spread across these counties: Housing & Transportation, 65+ — 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.

Bay County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 69th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 19th percentile to the 89th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median4 (22%)
Above the median7 (39%)
Near the median4 (22%)
Below the median2 (11%)
Well below the median1 (6%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Health, Disability & Isolation — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked county subdivisions here.
AVI ranks each county subdivision's position relative to a comparison set; it is not averaged into one number for the area, because percentiles do not average meaningfully. The distribution — median, range, and shape below — is the summary.
Well above the median — 22 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Oscoda County — 99th 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), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clare County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 1 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 (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iosco County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Lake County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gladwin County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iron County — 91st 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); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mackinac County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Menominee County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Roscommon County — 90th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Alcona County — 89th 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+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Presque Isle County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gogebic County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Huron County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Arenac 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), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montmorency County — 87th 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.
Alpena County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Delta County — 87th 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ogemaw 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), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cheboygan County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sanilac County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mason County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Crawford County — 81st percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Above the median — 17 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Berrien County — 80th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Osceola County — 78th 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.
Schoolcraft County — 77th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cass County — 77th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ontonagon County — 75th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Keweenaw County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Charlevoix County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Saginaw County — 72nd percentile — Above 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+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Baraga County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Alger County — 71st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dickinson County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manistee County — 67th percentile — 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+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mecosta County — 66th percentile — Above 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 Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Joseph County — 65th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bay County — 64th percentile — 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.
Hillsdale County — 64th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Antrim County — 61st percentile — Above 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.
Near the median — 18 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Tuscola County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Emmet County — 59th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oceana County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Benzie County — 58th percentile — Near 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.
Missaukee County — 58th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Leelanau County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Kalkaska County — 55th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Wexford County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newaygo County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wayne County — 51st 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Midland County — 51st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Clair County — 49th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Genesee County — 47th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Branch County — 46th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Chippewa County — 45th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eaton County — 45th 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 Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Van Buren County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shiawassee County — 41st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 15 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Macomb County — 39th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Monroe County — 39th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Calhoun County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Montcalm County — 36th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lapeer County — 35th 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.
Muskegon County — 34th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Barry County — 33rd 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.
Luce County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Grand Traverse Count — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Jackson County — 27th percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Marquette County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oakland County — 25th percentile — Below the median 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.
Gratiot County — 23rd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lenawee County — 21st percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Otsego County — 21st percentile — Below the median 2 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.
Well below the median — 11 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Houghton County — 20th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ingham County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clinton County — 15th 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.
Livingston County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Kalamazoo County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Washtenaw County — 8th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Kent County — 8th 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.
Allegan County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Ottawa County — 8th 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.
Isabella County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Ionia County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
AVI = a candidate Aging Vulnerability Index, computed by this platform from American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates, following the same method shape (percentile rank -> theme sum -> re-rank -> overall) as the CDC/ATSDR SVI this platform also recomputes — but AVI itself has no published ground truth to validate against. It is a first-cut, directional design. Percentiles rank each county against all U.S. counties.
Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top