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

Clearfield County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Clearfield County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Beccaria township — 71 (Middle)Bell township — 85 (Upper-middle)Bigler township — 79 (Upper-middle)Bloom township — 69 (Middle)Boggs township — 62 (Middle)Bradford township — 45 (Lower-middle)Brady township — 42 (Lower-middle)Brisbin borough — 54 (Middle)Burnside borough — 85 (Upper-middle)Burnside township — 47 (Lower-middle)Chest township — 86 (Upper-middle)Chester Hill borough — 52 (Lower-middle)Clearfield borough — 97 (Higher)Coalport borough — 58 (Middle)Cooper township — 35 (Lower)Covington township — 77 (Upper-middle)Curwensville borough — 91 (Higher)Decatur township — 28 (Lower)DuBois — 87 (Higher)Falls Creek borough — 5 (Lower)Ferguson township — 76 (Upper-middle)Girard township — 64 (Middle)Glen Hope borough — 81 (Upper-middle)Goshen township — 57 (Middle)Graham township — 73 (Middle)Grampian borough — 51 (Lower-middle)Greenwood township — 81 (Upper-middle)Gulich township — 36 (Lower-middle)Houtzdale borough — 73 (Upper-middle)Huston township — 86 (Higher)Irvona borough — 96 (Higher)Jordan township — 64 (Middle)Karthaus township — 25 (Lower)Knox township — 99 (Higher)Lawrence township — 97 (Higher)Mahaffey borough — 76 (Upper-middle)Morris township — 54 (Middle)Newburg borough — 44 (Lower-middle)New Washington borough — 26 (Lower)Osceola Mills borough — 34 (Lower)Penn township — 38 (Lower-middle)Pike township — 94 (Higher)Pine township — 3 (Lower)Ramey borough — 32 (Lower)Sandy township — 90 (Higher)Troutville borough — 42 (Lower-middle)Union township — 91 (Higher)Wallaceton borough — 35 (Lower-middle)Westover borough — 34 (Lower)Woodward township — 31 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (3 to 35)Lower-middle (35 to 52)Middle (54 to 73)Upper-middle (73 to 86)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: 63rd percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 3rd percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median15 (30%)
Above the median11 (22%)
Near the median11 (22%)
Below the median11 (22%)
Well below the median2 (4%)
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 — 15 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Knox township — 99th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clearfield borough — 97th 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 (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lawrence township — 97th 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.
Irvona borough — 96th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pike township — 94th percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Union township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Curwensville borough — 91st percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sandy township — 90th percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
DuBois — 87th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Huston township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chest township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Bell township — 85th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Burnside borough — 85th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
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.
Greenwood township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Glen Hope borough — 81st percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 11 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Bigler township — 79th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Covington township — 77th 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+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mahaffey borough — 76th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ferguson township — 76th percentile — Above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Houtzdale borough — 73rd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Graham township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Beccaria township — 71st percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Bloom township — 69th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Jordan township — 64th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Girard township — 64th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Boggs township — 62nd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 11 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Coalport borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Goshen township — 57th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
Brisbin borough — 54th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Morris township — 54th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Chester Hill borough — 52nd percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Grampian borough — 51st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Burnside township — 47th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Bradford township — 45th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newburg borough — 44th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brady township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Troutville borough — 42nd percentile — Near the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 11 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Penn township — 38th percentile — Below the median 4 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.
Gulich township — 36th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
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.
Wallaceton borough — 35th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cooper township — 35th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Osceola Mills borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Westover borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ramey borough — 32nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Woodward township — 31st percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Decatur township — 28th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Washington borough — 26th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Karthaus township — 25th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Well below the median — 2 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Falls Creek borough — 5th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pine township — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
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