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

Beltrami County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Beltrami County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Alaska township — 17 (Middle)Battle township — 5 (Lower)Bemidji — 88 (Higher)Bemidji township — 41 (Upper-middle)Benville township — no data (unmeasured)Birch township — 48 (Higher)Blackduck — 64 (Higher)Brook Lake UT — 7 (Lower)Buzzle township — 46 (Upper-middle)Cormant township — 14 (Lower-middle)Durand township — 16 (Lower-middle)Eckles township — 27 (Middle)Frohn township — 75 (Higher)Funkley — no data (unmeasured)Grant Valley township — 12 (Lower-middle)Hagali township — 5 (Lower)Hamre township — no data (unmeasured)Hines township — 95 (Higher)Hornet township — 68 (Higher)Jones township — 20 (Middle)Kelliher — 30 (Upper-middle)Kelliher township — 1 (Lower)Lammers township — 5 (Lower)Langor township — 10 (Lower-middle)Lee township — no data (unmeasured)Liberty township — 29 (Middle)Lower Red Lake UT — 9 (Lower-middle)Maple Ridge township — 13 (Lower-middle)Minnie township — 39 (Upper-middle)Moose Lake township — 51 (Higher)Nebish township — 38 (Upper-middle)North Beltrami UT — no data (unmeasured)Northern township — 13 (Lower-middle)O'Brien township — 28 (Middle)Port Hope township — 32 (Upper-middle)Quiring township — 4 (Lower)Roosevelt township — 8 (Lower-middle)Shooks township — 24 (Middle)Shotley township — 41 (Upper-middle)Shotley Brook UT — no data (unmeasured)Solway — 8 (Lower-middle)Spruce Grove township — 3 (Lower)Steenerson township — 7 (Lower)Sugar Bush township — 53 (Higher)Summit township — 79 (Higher)Taylor township — 12 (Lower-middle)Ten Lake township — 48 (Upper-middle)Tenstrike — 6 (Lower)Turtle Lake township — 45 (Upper-middle)Turtle River — 26 (Middle)Turtle River township — 37 (Upper-middle)Upper Red Lake UT — no data (unmeasured)Waskish township — 52 (Higher)Wilton — 20 (Middle)Woodrow township — 25 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (1 to 7)Lower-middle (8 to 16)Middle (17 to 29)Upper-middle (30 to 48)Higher (48 to 95)No data
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.

Click a county subdivision to see its overall percentile and theme scores.

← Back to county view
Median county subdivision: 26th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 1st percentile to the 95th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median2 (4%)
Above the median4 (8%)
Near the median9 (19%)
Below the median13 (27%)
Well below the median20 (42%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Housing & Transportation, 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 — 2 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Hines township — 95th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Bemidji — 88th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 4 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Summit township — 79th percentile — Above the median 7 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.
Frohn township — 75th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hornet township — 68th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Blackduck — 64th percentile — Above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Near the median — 9 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Sugar Bush township — 53rd percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Waskish township — 52nd percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Moose Lake township — 51st percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Birch township — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
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+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ten Lake township — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Buzzle township — 46th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Turtle Lake township — 45th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shotley township — 41st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bemidji township — 41st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Minnie township — 39th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Nebish township — 38th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Turtle River township — 37th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Port Hope township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Kelliher — 30th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Liberty township — 29th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
O'Brien township — 28th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Eckles township — 27th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Turtle River — 26th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Woodrow township — 25th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Shooks township — 24th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wilton — 20th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Jones township — 20th percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 20 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Alaska township — 17th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Durand township — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Cormant township — 14th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Northern township — 13th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Maple Ridge township — 13th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Taylor township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grant Valley township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Langor township — 10th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Red Lake UT — 9th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Roosevelt township — 8th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Solway — 8th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brook Lake UT — 7th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Steenerson township — 7th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Tenstrike — 6th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Battle township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Lammers township — 5th 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.
Hagali township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Quiring township — 4th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Spruce Grove township — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged
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.
Kelliher township — 1st percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
7 counties unranked — insufficient data
These carry no percentile. Excluded from the bands, median and range above, and never shown as a low score.
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. county subdivisions.
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