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)
St. Louis County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
St. Louis County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (2 to 21)Lower-middle (21 to 36)Middle (36 to 53)Upper-middle (53 to 78)Higher (79 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: 45th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 2nd percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
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 — 19 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Cook — 99th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
White township — 99th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Chisholm — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Babbitt — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Winton — 90th 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); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Beatty township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Virginia — 88th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Willow Valley township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Vermilion Lake township — 87th 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+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Meadowlands — 87th percentile — Well above the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hibbing — 86th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pike township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cotton township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Ely — 84th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Floodwood township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Leonidas — 81st percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Brookston — 81st percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gilbert — 81st percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Leiding township — 80th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 21 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Van Buren township — 80th percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stoney Brook township — 79th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Floodwood — 79th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Morcom township — 78th percentile — Above the median 6 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.
Greenwood township — 78th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Duluth — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged
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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hoyt Lakes — 74th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Buhl — 72nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iron Junction — 72nd percentile — Above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gnesen township — 71st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Proctor — 69th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alden township — 68th percentile — Above the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Biwabik township — 68th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Morse township — 67th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Camp 5 township — 66th 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.
Hermantown — 66th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Ness township — 64th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kugler township — 63rd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
French township — 63rd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alborn township — 61st percentile — Above the median 7 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.
Sturgeon township — 60th percentile — Above the median 6 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.
Near the median — 19 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Kabetogama township — 60th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Toivola township — 60th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Portage township — 60th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Whiteface Reservoir UT — 53rd percentile — Near the median 6 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.
Breitung township — 53rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Field township — 52nd percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Crane Lake township — 51st percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Birch Lake UT — 51st percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Halden township — 51st percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
McCormack UT — 50th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Owens township — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Culver township — 48th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lavell township — 47th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Cedar Valley township — 46th percentile — Near the median 7 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.
Mountain Iron — 45th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Biwabik — 45th 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.
Embarrass township — 44th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Tower — 44th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Brevator township — 40th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Below the median — 31 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Fayal township — 40th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McDavitt township — 39th 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.
Colvin township — 38th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
Sandy township — 38th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eveleth — 36th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Industrial township — 36th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fine Lakes township — 36th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alango township — 35th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Angora township — 35th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rice Lake — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Meadowlands township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grand Lake township — 31st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ellsburg township — 30th percentile — 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.
Canosia township — 30th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Great Scott township — 30th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Makinen UT — 30th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Star township — 29th percentile — 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.
Lakewood township — 28th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cherry township — 26th percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Eagles Nest township — 24th percentile — Below the median 4 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.
Kinney — 23rd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairbanks township — 23rd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Elmer township — 23rd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Northeast St. Louis UT — 23rd percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Duluth township — 23rd percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Northland township — 21st percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Prairie Lake township — 21st 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.
Balkan township — 21st percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Wuori township — 21st percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Northwest St. Louis UT — 21st percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clinton township — 20th percentile — 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.
Well below the median — 18 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Fredenberg township — 20th 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.
McKinley — 18th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Janette Lake UT — 18th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Solway township — 18th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
New Independence township — 18th percentile — Well below the median 8 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.
Pequaywan township — 16th percentile — Well 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.
Sand Lake UT — 15th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged
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.
Midway township — 13th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Kelsey township — 13th 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.
Linden Grove township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nett Lake UT — 11th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Waasa township — 10th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ault township — 10th 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.
Orr — 8th 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.
Arrowhead township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
Normanna township — 5th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Potshot Lake UT — 4th 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.
Bassett 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.
3 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.