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)
Polk County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Polk County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 5)Lower-middle (5 to 14)Middle (15 to 25)Upper-middle (27 to 52)Higher (55 to 99)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.
Median county subdivision: 20th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 0th percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Economic Precarity, 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 — 7 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Fosston — 99th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fertile — 95th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Erskine — 94th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Knute township — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Eden township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McIntosh — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brandt township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Above the median — 4 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Grove Park-Tilden township — 69th percentile — Above the median 6 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.
Helgeland township — 66th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Belgium township — 66th percentile — Above the median 7 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.
Crookston — 61st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 9 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Northland township — 60th percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sandsville township — 60th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kertsonville township — 55th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Mentor — 52nd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gully — 51st percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Woodside township — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairfax township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hill River township — 41st percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Godfrey township — 41st percentile — Near the median 7 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.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
King township — 34th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Garfield township — 33rd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Esther township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
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.
Vineland township — 31st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
East Grand Forks — 31st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged
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.
Johnson township — 29th 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.
Grand Forks township — 27th percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Farley 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.
Parnell township — 24th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Fisher township — 24th percentile — Below the median 9 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.
Huntsville township — 22nd percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
Lengby — 22nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fisher — 22nd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 33 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Queen township — 18th 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.
Hammond township — 18th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Bygland township — 17th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Winger township — 15th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Columbia township — 15th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Garden township — 15th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Crookston township — 15th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sletten township — 14th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Beltrami — 14th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Trail — 10th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Winger — 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.
Brislet 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.
Hubbard township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Gentilly township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 8 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.
Tabor township — 9th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Euclid township — 6th percentile — Well below the median 8 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.
Chester township — 6th 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.
Roome township — 6th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Onstad township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Badger township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rosebud township — 5th 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.
Nesbit township — 5th 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.
Andover township — 4th percentile — Well below the median 8 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.
Climax — 4th 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.
Scandia township — 4th 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.
Lessor township — 4th 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.
Brandsvold township — 3rd 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.
Liberty township — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Rhinehart township — 2nd 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.
Lowell township — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 9 of 12 flagged
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.
Sullivan township — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Reis 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.
Higdem township — 0th 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.