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)
MO — Aging Vulnerability Index
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
MO — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (1 to 27)Lower-middle (29 to 42)Middle (42 to 63)Upper-middle (64 to 81)Higher (81 to 100)
Each unit is shaded by its Aging Vulnerability Index value and grouped into equal-count bands (quantiles) against the other units shown — lighter = lower, darker = higher. It ranks position among the units in view; it does not grade places, and the ranges shift with which units are shown.
The map is bounded to this parent geography — it shows the selected unit among its own siblings only, the same depth rule the drill-down uses. Shading ranks position on the measure among the units shown; it does not grade places.
Median county: 55th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 1st percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Caldwell County is marked below — Above the median.
Widest spread across these counties: Health, Disability & Isolation — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked counties here.
AVI ranks each county's position relative to a comparison set; it is not averaged into one number for the area, because percentiles do not average meaningfully. The distribution — median, range, and shape below — is the summary.
Caldwell County — by county subdivision
Median county subdivision: 58th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 13th percentile to the 96th 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 — 25 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Ozark County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Benton County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Reynolds County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hickory County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wayne County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Barton County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Harrison County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Morgan County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Monroe County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grundy County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Douglas County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Stone County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ripley County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wright County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shannon County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Texas County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Daviess County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Macon County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cedar County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Holt County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dade County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Camden County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bollinger County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iron County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oregon County — 80th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Above the median — 27 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Laclede County — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Worth County — 78th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Barry County — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Dent County — 76th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Pemiscot County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Clair County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Washington County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Putnam County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Livingston County — 71st percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Sullivan County — 70th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Henry County — 70th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Carter County — 69th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Howell County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stoddard County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Butler County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mercer County — 68th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Schuyler County — 67th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Howard County — 67th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Carroll County — 66th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (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.
Caldwell County — 64th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Miller County — 64th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Madrid County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clark County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bates County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Taney County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Atchison County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Maries County — 61st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Near the median — 19 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Ray County — 60th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Audrain County — 57th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Crawford County — 57th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
DeKalb County — 55th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dunklin County — 55th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Scotland County — 55th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (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.
Vernon County — 54th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Linn County — 54th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Ralls County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Polk County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montgomery County — 51st percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lewis County — 48th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well 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.
St. Louis city — 47th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Gasconade County — 46th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Moniteau County — 45th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ste. Genevieve Count — 44th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Scott County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pettis County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lawrence County — 40th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 30 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Chariton County — 40th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pike County — 39th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Buchanan County — 39th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Cooper County — 38th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Osage County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shelby County — 38th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Dallas County — 37th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McDonald County — 36th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Greene County — 35th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lafayette County — 34th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Saline County — 34th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jasper County — 34th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Knox County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clinton County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Marion County — 32nd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Franklin County — 31st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Perry County — 31st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nodaway County — 31st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
St. Louis County — 31st percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
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.
Jackson County — 29th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
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.
Cape Girardeau Count — 29th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Andrew County — 27th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Madison County — 27th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newton County — 27th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Randolph County — 25th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Phelps County — 24th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Mississippi County — 24th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Francois County — 23rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Gentry County — 23rd percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Adair County — 21st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 14 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Webster County — 17th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Warren County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Cass County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pulaski County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Christian County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
St. Charles County — 10th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Cole County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jefferson County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Callaway County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clay County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Boone County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Platte County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Lincoln County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Johnson County — 1st percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
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. counties.
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.