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

Marshall County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Marshall County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Agder township — 10 (Lower-middle)Alma township — 44 (Upper-middle)Alvarado — 43 (Upper-middle)Argyle — 48 (Upper-middle)Augsburg township — no data (unmeasured)Big Woods township — 2 (Lower)Bloomer township — 48 (Upper-middle)Boxville township — no data (unmeasured)Cedar township — 6 (Lower)Como township — no data (unmeasured)Comstock township — 50 (Upper-middle)Donnelly township — no data (unmeasured)Eagle Point township — no data (unmeasured)East Park township — no data (unmeasured)East Valley township — 7 (Lower)Eckvoll township — 29 (Middle)Espelie township — no data (unmeasured)Excel township — 41 (Middle)Foldahl township — 34 (Middle)Fork township — no data (unmeasured)Grand Plain township — 2 (Lower)Grygla — 38 (Middle)Holt — 100 (Higher)Holt township — 48 (Upper-middle)Huntly township — 10 (Lower-middle)Lincoln township — 95 (Higher)Linsell township — 30 (Middle)McCrea township — 82 (Higher)Marsh Grove township — 46 (Upper-middle)Middle River — 56 (Upper-middle)Middle River township — 3 (Lower)Moose River township — no data (unmeasured)Moylan township — 5 (Lower)Mud Lake UT — no data (unmeasured)Nelson Park township — 31 (Middle)Newfolden — 74 (Higher)New Folden township — 77 (Higher)New Maine township — 9 (Lower-middle)New Solum township — 62 (Higher)Oak Park township — 52 (Upper-middle)Oslo — 9 (Lower)Parker township — no data (unmeasured)Rollis township — 73 (Higher)Sinnott township — 9 (Lower-middle)Spruce Valley township — 32 (Middle)Stephen — 57 (Upper-middle)Strandquist — no data (unmeasured)Tamarac township — 2 (Lower)Thief Lake township — 9 (Lower-middle)Valley township — 14 (Lower-middle)Vega township — 17 (Lower-middle)Veldt township — 88 (Higher)Viking — 33 (Middle)Viking township — 6 (Lower)Wanger township — 81 (Higher)Warren — 85 (Higher)Warrenton township — 15 (Lower-middle)West Valley township — 19 (Lower-middle)Whiteford township — 21 (Lower-middle)Wright township — 42 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (2 to 9)Lower-middle (9 to 21)Middle (29 to 42)Upper-middle (43 to 57)Higher (62 to 100)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: 34th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 2nd percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median6 (13%)
Above the median4 (8%)
Near the median12 (25%)
Below the median8 (17%)
Well below the median18 (38%)
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 — 6 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Holt — 100th percentile — Well above the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lincoln township — 95th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Veldt township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Warren — 85th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
McCrea township — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Wanger township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
Above the median — 4 counties (60th–80th percentile)
New Folden township — 77th percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
Newfolden — 74th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rollis township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
New Solum township — 62nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 12 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Stephen — 57th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Middle River — 56th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oak Park township — 52nd percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Comstock township — 50th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Argyle — 48th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Bloomer township — 48th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Holt township — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marsh Grove township — 46th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Alma township — 44th 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.
Alvarado — 43rd percentile — Near the median 8 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.
Wright township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Excel township — 41st percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Below the median — 8 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Grygla — 38th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Foldahl township — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Viking — 33rd percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Spruce Valley township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Nelson Park township — 31st percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Linsell township — 30th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eckvoll township — 29th percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Whiteford township — 21st percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Well below the median — 18 counties (0th–20th percentile)
West Valley township — 19th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Vega township — 17th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Warrenton township — 15th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Valley township — 14th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Agder township — 10th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Huntly township — 10th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
New Maine township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Thief Lake township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.
Sinnott township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oslo — 9th percentile — Well below the median 9 of 12 flagged
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.
East Valley 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.
Viking township — 6th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (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.
Cedar township — 6th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Moylan township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (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.
Middle River township — 3rd 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.
Tamarac township — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Big Woods township — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Grand Plain township — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
12 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