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

Crawford County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Crawford County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Athens township — 83 (Upper-middle)Beaver township — 78 (Middle)Bloomfield township — 82 (Upper-middle)Blooming Valley borough — 52 (Lower-middle)Cambridge township — 49 (Lower)Cambridge Springs borough — 59 (Lower-middle)Centerville borough — 91 (Higher)Cochranton borough — 98 (Higher)Conneaut township — 100 (Higher)Conneaut Lake borough — 100 (Higher)Conneautville borough — 81 (Middle)Cussewago township — 35 (Lower)East Fairfield township — 82 (Middle)East Fallowfield township — 97 (Higher)East Mead township — 37 (Lower)Fairfield township — 88 (Upper-middle)Greenwood township — 30 (Lower)Hayfield township — 67 (Middle)Hydetown borough — 95 (Higher)Linesville borough — 58 (Lower-middle)Meadville — 86 (Upper-middle)North Shenango township — 66 (Middle)Oil Creek township — 90 (Upper-middle)Pine township — 83 (Upper-middle)Randolph township — 64 (Lower-middle)Richmond township — 92 (Higher)Rockdale township — 60 (Lower-middle)Rome township — 76 (Middle)Sadsbury township — 63 (Lower-middle)Saegertown borough — 21 (Lower)South Shenango township — 88 (Upper-middle)Sparta township — 61 (Lower-middle)Spartansburg borough — 24 (Lower)Spring township — 95 (Higher)Springboro borough — 44 (Lower)Steuben township — 93 (Higher)Summerhill township — 95 (Higher)Summit township — 74 (Middle)Titusville — 88 (Upper-middle)Townville borough — 25 (Lower)Troy township — 61 (Lower-middle)Union township — 81 (Middle)Venango borough — 68 (Middle)Venango township — 36 (Lower)Vernon township — 91 (Higher)Wayne township — 35 (Lower)West Fallowfield township — 62 (Lower-middle)West Mead township — 50 (Lower-middle)West Shenango township — 74 (Middle)Woodcock borough — 85 (Upper-middle)Woodcock township — 85 (Upper-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (21 to 49)Lower-middle (50 to 64)Middle (66 to 82)Upper-middle (82 to 90)Higher (91 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: 76th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 21st percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median24 (47%)
Above the median12 (24%)
Near the median7 (14%)
Below the median8 (16%)
Well below the median0 (0%)
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)
Conneaut township — 100th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Conneaut Lake borough — 100th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cochranton borough — 98th percentile — Well above the median 4 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 (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Fallowfield township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hydetown borough — 95th 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 ‡ (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Summerhill township — 95th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Spring township — 95th percentile — Well above the median 4 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.
Steuben township — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Richmond township — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Centerville borough — 91st percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Vernon township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Oil Creek township — 90th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
South Shenango township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Titusville — 88th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Fairfield township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Meadville — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Woodcock township — 85th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Woodcock borough — 85th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Athens township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pine township — 83rd 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 Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bloomfield township — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
East Fairfield township — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Union township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conneautville borough — 81st percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Above the median — 12 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Beaver township — 78th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Rome township — 76th percentile — Above the median 5 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.
West Shenango township — 74th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Summit township — 74th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Venango borough — 68th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hayfield township — 67th percentile — Above the median 5 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.
North Shenango township — 66th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Randolph township — 64th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sadsbury township — 63rd percentile — Above the median 7 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.
West Fallowfield township — 62nd 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sparta township — 61st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Troy township — 61st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Near the median — 7 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Rockdale township — 60th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cambridge Springs borough — 59th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Linesville borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 6 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.
Blooming Valley borough — 52nd percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Mead township — 50th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cambridge township — 49th percentile — Near the median 4 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.
Springboro borough — 44th percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 8 counties (20th–40th percentile)
East Mead township — 37th percentile — Below the median 7 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.
Venango township — 36th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Cussewago township — 35th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Wayne township — 35th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Greenwood township — 30th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Townville borough — 25th percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Spartansburg borough — 24th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Saegertown borough — 21st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ 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