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
- Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
- De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
- Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
- Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
- Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
- Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
- Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
- Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
- Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
- Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)
50,000-99,999
Highest
- Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
- Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
- Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
- Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
- Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
- Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
- Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
- Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
- Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
- Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)
100,000-299,999
Highest
- Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
- Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
- Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
- Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
- Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
- Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
- Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
- Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
- St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
- Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)
300,000 and higher
Highest
- Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
- Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
- Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
- Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
- Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
- Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
- Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
- Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
- Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
- Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
MI — Aging Vulnerability Index
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
MI — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 18)Lower-middle (20 to 39)Middle (40 to 59)Upper-middle (60 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 MI).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Livingston County is marked below — Well below the median.
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.
Livingston County — by county subdivision
Median county subdivision: 17th percentile (among county subdivisions in MI).
These county subdivisions span the 1st percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Social 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 — 17 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Oscoda County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clare County — 99th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iosco County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Iron 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+ (well 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.
Gladwin County — 94th 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 (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mackinac County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 3 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+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Presque Isle County — 91st 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 — 90th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Roscommon County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 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+.
Alcona 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 Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 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+ (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.
Menominee County — 85th 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.
Arenac County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alpena County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ogemaw County — 82nd 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) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Huron County — 80th 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 16 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Sanilac County — 79th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Delta County — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cheboygan County — 77th percentile — 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 (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Berrien County — 76th 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; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Osceola County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 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 ‡ (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Crawford County — 72nd percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Saginaw County — 71st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cass County — 70th percentile — Above 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 Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Schoolcraft 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 Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ontonagon County — 67th 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.
Baraga County — 66th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Mason County — 65th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mecosta County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hillsdale County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manistee County — 61st percentile — Above the median 1 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 — 17 counties (40th–60th percentile)
St. Joseph County — 60th percentile — Near 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+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dickinson County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Charlevoix County — 57th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Alger County — 56th 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, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bay County — 55th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tuscola County — 54th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wexford County — 52nd 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.
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.
Oceana County — 50th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Leelanau County — 49th 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.
Missaukee County — 48th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Branch County — 46th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ 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+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newaygo County — 44th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Midland County — 43rd 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 and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Antrim County — 41st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kalkaska County — 40th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
Below the median — 16 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Emmet County — 39th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Genesee County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Benzie County — 37th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Clair County — 35th 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, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eaton County — 34th 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.
Calhoun County — 33rd percentile — 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shiawassee County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Macomb County — 30th 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.
Van Buren County — 29th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Luce County — 28th percentile — Below the median 3 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Monroe County — 27th percentile — 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.
Barry County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Muskegon County — 24th 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.
Montcalm County — 23rd 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 — 22nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gratiot County — 21st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 17 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Ingham County — 20th 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); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oakland County — 18th 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.
Jackson County — 17th percentile — Well 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 — 16th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Houghton County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grand Traverse Count — 13th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Lenawee County — 12th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Otsego County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 2 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.
Clinton County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Washtenaw County — 9th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Isabella County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kent County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Livingston County — 5th 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 — 4th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Allegan County — 2nd 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 — 1st 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.
Ionia County — 0th 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.
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 MI.
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.