About this index & how it's been checked

The Aging Vulnerability Index (AVI) is this platform's own construction, modeled on the CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index methodology but not a CDC product and not independently validated. It combines Census ACS data on the population 65 and older — demographic aging pressure, economic precarity, health/disability/isolation, and housing/transportation burden — into a single percentile ranking of U.S. counties. The underlying inputs are official Census data; the index construction and weighting are this platform's own.

Reference-county check

A face-validity check against real counties with well-documented age profiles — the same method used to calibrate this platform's seasonal-community threshold. Higher percentile = more aging-vulnerable.

  • ✓ Sumter County, FL — 79.8th percentile (expected HIGH, The Villages — often cited as the oldest-median-age U.S. county)
  • ✓ Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Citrus County, FL — 88.1th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Highlands County, FL — 95.9th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Brazos County, TX — 17.0th percentile (expected LOW, Texas A&M)
  • ✓ Story County, IA — 8.9th percentile (expected LOW, Iowa State)
  • ✓ Whitman County, WA — 10.3th percentile (expected LOW, Washington State University)
  • ✓ Tompkins County, NY — 7.6th percentile (expected LOW, Cornell)

Highest / lowest AVI by county population

Under 50,000

Highest
  1. Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
  2. De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
  3. Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
  4. Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
  5. Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
  1. Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
  2. Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
  3. Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
  4. Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
  5. Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)

50,000-99,999

Highest
  1. Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
  2. Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
  3. Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
  4. Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
  5. Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
  1. Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
  2. Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
  3. Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
  4. Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
  5. Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)

100,000-299,999

Highest
  1. Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
  2. Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
  3. Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
  4. Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
  5. Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
  1. Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
  2. Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
  3. Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
  4. St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
  5. Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)

300,000 and higher

Highest
  1. Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
  2. Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
  3. Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
  4. Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
  5. Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
  1. Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
  2. Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
  3. Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
  4. Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
  5. Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
Compare
NationallyWithin its state

NY — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
NY — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Albany County — 21 (Lower)Allegany County — 61 (Upper-middle)Bronx County — 46 (Middle)Broome County — 54 (Upper-middle)Cattaraugus County — 68 (Higher)Cayuga County — 43 (Middle)Chautauqua County — 68 (Upper-middle)Chemung County — 69 (Higher)Chenango County — 55 (Upper-middle)Clinton County — 26 (Lower)Columbia County — 74 (Higher)Cortland County — 18 (Lower)Delaware County — 81 (Higher)Dutchess County — 30 (Lower-middle)Erie County — 50 (Middle)Essex County — 89 (Higher)Franklin County — 44 (Middle)Fulton County — 55 (Upper-middle)Genesee County — 43 (Middle)Greene County — 70 (Higher)Hamilton County — 27 (Lower-middle)Herkimer County — 68 (Upper-middle)Jefferson County — 14 (Lower)Kings County — 42 (Middle)Lewis County — 54 (Upper-middle)Livingston County — 27 (Lower-middle)Madison County — 32 (Lower-middle)Monroe County — 31 (Lower-middle)Montgomery County — 50 (Upper-middle)Nassau County — 27 (Lower-middle)New York County — 53 (Upper-middle)Niagara County — 72 (Higher)Oneida County — 52 (Upper-middle)Onondaga County — 35 (Lower-middle)Ontario County — 42 (Middle)Orange County — 12 (Lower)Orleans County — 38 (Lower-middle)Oswego County — 36 (Lower-middle)Otsego County — 45 (Middle)Putnam County — 22 (Lower)Queens County — 42 (Middle)Richmond County — 29 (Lower-middle)Rockland County — 24 (Lower)St. Lawrence County — 37 (Lower-middle)Saratoga County — 28 (Lower-middle)Schenectady County — 39 (Middle)Schoharie County — 78 (Higher)Schuyler County — 71 (Higher)Seneca County — 85 (Higher)Steuben County — 60 (Upper-middle)Suffolk County — 19 (Lower)Sullivan County — 21 (Lower)Tioga County — 79 (Higher)Tompkins County — 8 (Lower)Ulster County — 66 (Upper-middle)Warren County — 70 (Higher)Washington County — 49 (Middle)Wayne County — 45 (Middle)Westchester County — 26 (Lower)Wyoming County — 48 (Middle)Yates County — 76 (Higher)Rensselaer County — 21 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (8 to 26)Lower-middle (27 to 38)Middle (39 to 50)Upper-middle (50 to 68)Higher (68 to 89)
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: 44th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 8th percentile to the 89th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Rensselaer County is marked below — Below the median.
Well above the median3 (5%)
Above the median14 (23%)
Near the median20 (32%)
Below the median20 (32%) ◀ Rensselaer County
Well below the median5 (8%)
Widest spread across these counties: Housing & Transportation, 65+ — 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.

Rensselaer County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 41st percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 19th percentile to the 96th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median1 (6%)
Above the median4 (25%)
Near the median3 (19%)
Below the median7 (44%)
Well below the median1 (6%)
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 — 3 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Essex County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Seneca County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Delaware County — 81st percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Above the median — 14 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Tioga County — 79th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Schoharie County — 78th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yates County — 76th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Columbia County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Niagara County — 72nd 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 and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Schuyler County — 71st percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Warren County — 70th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Greene County — 70th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Chemung County — 69th percentile — Above 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 Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cattaraugus County — 68th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Chautauqua 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Herkimer County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ulster County — 66th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Social Isolation.
Allegany County — 61st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 20 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Steuben County — 60th percentile — Near 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 and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chenango County — 55th percentile — Near 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fulton County — 55th percentile — Near 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.
Broome County — 54th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lewis County — 54th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New York County — 53rd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Social Isolation.
Oneida County — 52nd percentile — Near 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 and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montgomery County — 50th percentile — Near 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 and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Erie County — 50th percentile — Near 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Washington County — 49th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Wyoming County — 48th percentile — Near the median 2 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.
Bronx County — 46th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
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.
Wayne County — 45th 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 Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Otsego County — 45th 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 Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklin County — 44th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Genesee County — 43rd percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Cayuga County — 43rd percentile — Near 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 Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kings County — 42nd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Queens County — 42nd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Ontario County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Below the median — 20 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Schenectady County — 39th 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.
Orleans County — 38th 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 ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Lawrence County — 37th percentile — 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.
Oswego County — 36th percentile — Below 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Onondaga County — 35th 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Madison County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Monroe County — 31st percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Dutchess County — 30th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Richmond County — 29th percentile — Below the median 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.
Saratoga County — 28th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Nassau County — 27th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Hamilton County — 27th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Livingston County — 27th 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Clinton County — 26th percentile — 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.
Westchester County — 26th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Rockland County — 24th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Putnam County — 22nd percentile — 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.
Sullivan County — 21st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Rensselaer County — 21st percentile — 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.
Albany County — 21st percentile — 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.
Well below the median — 5 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Suffolk County — 19th 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.
Cortland County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Jefferson County — 14th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (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.
Orange County — 12th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Tompkins County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
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.

Scroll to Top