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

Cuyahoga County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Cuyahoga County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Bay Village — 57 (Lower-middle)Beachwood — 93 (Higher)Bedford — 92 (Higher)Bedford Heights — 45 (Lower)Bentleyville village — 24 (Lower)Berea — 43 (Lower)Bratenahl village — 78 (Middle)Brecksville — 82 (Upper-middle)Broadview Heights — 53 (Lower-middle)Brooklyn — 99 (Higher)Brooklyn Heights village — 36 (Lower)Brook Park — 90 (Higher)Chagrin Falls township — 90 (Higher)Cleveland — 77 (Middle)Cleveland Heights — 86 (Upper-middle)Cuyahoga Heights village — 58 (Lower-middle)East Cleveland — 100 (Higher)Euclid — 74 (Middle)Fairview Park — 50 (Lower-middle)Garfield Heights — 61 (Lower-middle)Gates Mills village — 83 (Upper-middle)Glenwillow village — 88 (Upper-middle)Highland Heights — 58 (Lower-middle)Highland Hills village — 98 (Higher)Hunting Valley village — 59 (Lower-middle)Independence — 34 (Lower)Lakewood — 64 (Lower-middle)Linndale village — 28 (Lower)Lyndhurst — 88 (Upper-middle)Maple Heights — 44 (Lower)Mayfield village — 37 (Lower)Mayfield Heights — 89 (Higher)Middleburg Heights — 87 (Upper-middle)Moreland Hills village — 49 (Lower-middle)Newburgh Heights village — 49 (Lower-middle)North Olmsted — 85 (Upper-middle)North Randall village — 94 (Higher)North Royalton — 76 (Middle)Oakwood village — 82 (Upper-middle)Olmsted township — 74 (Middle)Olmsted Falls — 66 (Middle)Orange village — 80 (Middle)Parma — 73 (Middle)Parma Heights — 89 (Upper-middle)Pepper Pike — 21 (Lower)Richmond Heights — 98 (Higher)Rocky River — 88 (Upper-middle)Seven Hills — 72 (Middle)Shaker Heights — 81 (Middle)Solon — 75 (Middle)South Euclid — 45 (Lower)Strongsville — 89 (Higher)University Heights — 52 (Lower-middle)Valley View village — 84 (Upper-middle)Walton Hills village — 64 (Lower-middle)Warrensville Heights — 91 (Higher)Westlake — 86 (Upper-middle)Woodmere village — 19 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (19 to 45)Lower-middle (49 to 64)Middle (66 to 81)Upper-middle (82 to 89)Higher (89 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.

Click a county subdivision to see its overall percentile and theme scores.

← Back to county view
Median county subdivision: 75th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 19th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median26 (45%)
Above the median12 (21%)
Near the median13 (22%)
Below the median6 (10%)
Well below the median1 (2%)
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 — 26 counties (80th–100th percentile)
East Cleveland — 100th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brooklyn — 99th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Richmond Heights — 98th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Highland Hills village — 98th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Randall village — 94th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Beachwood — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Bedford — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Warrensville Heights — 91st 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 (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chagrin Falls township — 90th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Brook Park — 90th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mayfield Heights — 89th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Strongsville — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Parma Heights — 89th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Glenwillow village — 88th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Rocky River — 88th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lyndhurst — 88th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Middleburg Heights — 87th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cleveland Heights — 86th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Westlake — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Olmsted — 85th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
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.
Valley View village — 84th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gates Mills village — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Oakwood village — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 4 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.
Brecksville — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shaker Heights — 81st percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Orange village — 80th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 12 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Bratenahl village — 78th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Cleveland — 77th percentile — Above the median
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
North Royalton — 76th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Solon — 75th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Olmsted township — 74th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Euclid — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Parma — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Seven Hills — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 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.
Olmsted Falls — 66th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Walton Hills village — 64th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lakewood — 64th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Garfield Heights — 61st percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 13 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Hunting Valley village — 59th percentile — Near 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 ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Highland Heights — 58th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cuyahoga Heights village — 58th percentile — Near the median 6 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.
Bay Village — 57th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Broadview Heights — 53rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
University Heights — 52nd percentile — Near the median 6 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.
Fairview Park — 50th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newburgh Heights village — 49th percentile — Near 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.
Moreland Hills village — 49th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
South Euclid — 45th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bedford Heights — 45th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Maple Heights — 44th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Berea — 43rd percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 6 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Mayfield village — 37th percentile — Below the median 7 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.
Brooklyn Heights village — 36th percentile — Below the median 4 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.
Independence — 34th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Linndale village — 28th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bentleyville village — 24th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pepper Pike — 21st percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Well below the median — 1 county (0th–20th percentile)
Woodmere village — 19th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
1 county unranked — insufficient data
These carry no percentile. Excluded from the bands, median and range above, and never shown as a low score.
AVI = a candidate Aging Vulnerability Index, computed by this platform from American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates, following the same method shape (percentile rank -> theme sum -> re-rank -> overall) as the CDC/ATSDR SVI this platform also recomputes — but AVI itself has no published ground truth to validate against. It is a first-cut, directional design. Percentiles rank each county against all U.S. county subdivisions.
Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top