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

Cambria County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Cambria County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Adams township — 34 (Lower)Allegheny township — 7 (Lower)Ashville borough — 58 (Lower-middle)Barr township — 42 (Lower-middle)Blacklick township — 84 (Upper-middle)Brownstown borough — 97 (Higher)Cambria township — 88 (Higher)Carrolltown borough — 83 (Upper-middle)Cassandra borough — 82 (Upper-middle)Chest township — 26 (Lower)Chest Springs borough — 8 (Lower)Clearfield township — 48 (Lower-middle)Conemaugh township — 48 (Lower-middle)Cresson borough — 72 (Middle)Cresson township — 83 (Upper-middle)Croyle township — 73 (Middle)Daisytown borough — 76 (Middle)Dale borough — 82 (Upper-middle)Dean township — 59 (Middle)East Carroll township — 53 (Lower-middle)East Conemaugh borough — 47 (Lower-middle)East Taylor township — 83 (Upper-middle)Ebensburg borough — 92 (Higher)Ehrenfeld borough — 67 (Middle)Elder township — 93 (Higher)Ferndale borough — 48 (Lower-middle)Franklin borough — 88 (Higher)Gallitzin borough — 58 (Middle)Gallitzin township — 19 (Lower)Geistown borough — 89 (Higher)Hastings borough — 63 (Middle)Jackson township — 84 (Upper-middle)Johnstown — 77 (Upper-middle)Lilly borough — 62 (Middle)Lorain borough — 85 (Upper-middle)Loretto borough — 18 (Lower)Lower Yoder township — 98 (Higher)Middle Taylor township — 68 (Middle)Munster township — 11 (Lower)Nanty-Glo borough — 99 (Higher)Northern Cambria borough — 31 (Lower)Patton borough — 89 (Higher)Portage borough — 79 (Upper-middle)Portage township — 93 (Higher)Reade township — 92 (Higher)Richland township — 86 (Higher)Sankertown borough — 43 (Lower-middle)Scalp Level borough — 71 (Middle)South Fork borough — 37 (Lower)Southmont borough — 81 (Upper-middle)Stonycreek township — 35 (Lower)Summerhill borough — 67 (Middle)Summerhill township — 84 (Upper-middle)Susquehanna township — 88 (Higher)Tunnelhill borough — 6 (Lower)Upper Yoder township — 84 (Upper-middle)Vintondale borough — 74 (Middle)Washington township — 46 (Lower-middle)West Carroll township — 54 (Lower-middle)Westmont borough — 42 (Lower-middle)West Taylor township — 55 (Lower-middle)White township — 47 (Lower-middle)Wilmore borough — 9 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (6 to 37)Lower-middle (42 to 58)Middle (58 to 76)Upper-middle (77 to 85)Higher (86 to 99)
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: 68th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 6th percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median24 (38%)
Above the median12 (19%)
Near the median15 (24%)
Below the median5 (8%)
Well below the median7 (11%)
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 — 24 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Nanty-Glo borough — 99th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Yoder township — 98th percentile — Well above the median 3 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 ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brownstown borough — 97th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Elder township — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Portage township — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Reade township — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ebensburg borough — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Patton borough — 89th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Geistown borough — 89th 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); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklin borough — 88th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cambria township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Susquehanna township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Richland township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lorain borough — 85th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jackson township — 84th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Yoder township — 84th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Blacklick township — 84th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Summerhill township — 84th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Carrolltown borough — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
East Taylor township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cresson township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dale borough — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cassandra borough — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Southmont borough — 81st percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 12 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Portage borough — 79th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Johnstown — 77th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Daisytown borough — 76th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Vintondale borough — 74th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Croyle township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cresson borough — 72nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Scalp Level borough — 71st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Middle Taylor township — 68th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Summerhill borough — 67th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ehrenfeld borough — 67th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hastings borough — 63rd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
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.
Lilly borough — 62nd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 15 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Dean township — 59th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gallitzin borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ashville borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Taylor township — 55th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Carroll township — 54th 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 ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Carroll township — 53rd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Conemaugh township — 48th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Clearfield township — 48th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
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.
Ferndale borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
White township — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Conemaugh borough — 47th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Washington township — 46th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sankertown borough — 43rd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Barr township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Westmont borough — 42nd percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 5 counties (20th–40th percentile)
South Fork borough — 37th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stonycreek township — 35th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Adams township — 34th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Northern Cambria borough — 31st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chest township — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Well below the median — 7 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Gallitzin township — 19th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Loretto borough — 18th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Munster township — 11th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wilmore borough — 9th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chest Springs borough — 8th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Allegheny township — 7th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tunnelhill borough — 6th percentile — Well below the median 8 of 12 flagged
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.
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