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

Lancaster County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Lancaster County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Adamstown borough — 5 (Lower)Akron borough — 78 (Upper-middle)Bart township — 74 (Middle)Brecknock township — 87 (Higher)Caernarvon township — 66 (Middle)Christiana borough — 97 (Higher)Clay township — 78 (Upper-middle)Colerain township — 87 (Higher)Columbia borough — 96 (Higher)Conestoga township — 32 (Lower)Conoy township — 19 (Lower)Denver borough — 13 (Lower)Drumore township — 85 (Upper-middle)Earl township — 100 (Higher)East Cocalico township — 72 (Middle)East Donegal township — 4 (Lower)East Drumore township — 100 (Higher)East Earl township — 75 (Upper-middle)East Hempfield township — 82 (Upper-middle)East Lampeter township — 72 (Middle)East Petersburg borough — 24 (Lower)Eden township — 46 (Lower-middle)Elizabeth township — 67 (Middle)Elizabethtown borough — 78 (Upper-middle)Ephrata borough — 74 (Middle)Ephrata township — 81 (Upper-middle)Fulton township — 59 (Lower-middle)Lancaster — 53 (Lower-middle)Lancaster township — 72 (Middle)Leacock township — 62 (Middle)Lititz borough — 80 (Upper-middle)Little Britain township — 75 (Middle)Manheim borough — 17 (Lower)Manheim township — 92 (Higher)Manor township — 34 (Lower)Marietta borough — 83 (Upper-middle)Martic township — 34 (Lower)Millersville borough — 34 (Lower)Mount Joy borough — 44 (Lower-middle)Mount Joy township — 38 (Lower)Mountville borough — 94 (Higher)New Holland borough — 67 (Middle)Paradise township — 71 (Middle)Penn township — 82 (Upper-middle)Pequea township — 39 (Lower)Providence township — 55 (Lower-middle)Quarryville borough — 47 (Lower-middle)Rapho township — 88 (Higher)Sadsbury township — 56 (Lower-middle)Salisbury township — 67 (Middle)Strasburg borough — 54 (Lower-middle)Strasburg township — 40 (Lower-middle)Terre Hill borough — 48 (Lower-middle)Upper Leacock township — 79 (Upper-middle)Warwick township — 79 (Upper-middle)West Cocalico township — 50 (Lower-middle)West Donegal township — 98 (Higher)West Earl township — 92 (Higher)West Hempfield township — 42 (Lower-middle)West Lampeter township — 96 (Higher)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (4 to 39)Lower-middle (40 to 59)Middle (62 to 75)Upper-middle (75 to 85)Higher (87 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: 71st percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 4th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median17 (28%)
Above the median19 (32%)
Near the median11 (18%)
Below the median8 (13%)
Well below the median5 (8%)
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 — 17 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Earl township — 100th percentile — Well above the median 4 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.
East Drumore township — 100th percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Donegal township — 98th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Christiana borough — 97th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Columbia borough — 96th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Lampeter township — 96th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Mountville borough — 94th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Earl township — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 4 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manheim township — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rapho township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Brecknock township — 87th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Colerain township — 87th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Drumore township — 85th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Marietta borough — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 4 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+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Penn township — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Hempfield township — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 2 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.
Ephrata township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 19 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Lititz borough — 80th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Upper Leacock township — 79th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Warwick township — 79th percentile — Above the median 3 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.
Akron borough — 78th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Elizabethtown borough — 78th 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 Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clay township — 78th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Earl township — 75th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Little Britain township — 75th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bart township — 74th percentile — Above the median 4 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.
Ephrata borough — 74th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Lampeter township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
East Cocalico township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lancaster township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Paradise township — 71st percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Holland borough — 67th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Salisbury township — 67th percentile — Above the median 3 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.
Elizabeth township — 67th percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Caernarvon township — 66th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Leacock township — 62nd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Near the median — 11 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Fulton township — 59th percentile — Near 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.
Sadsbury township — 56th 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.
Providence township — 55th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Strasburg borough — 54th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Lancaster — 53rd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Cocalico township — 50th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Terre Hill borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Quarryville borough — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Eden township — 46th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mount Joy borough — 44th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Hempfield township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 8 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Strasburg township — 40th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Pequea township — 39th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mount Joy township — 38th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Martic township — 34th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Manor township — 34th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Millersville borough — 34th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conestoga township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (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.
East Petersburg borough — 24th percentile — Below the median 5 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 — 5 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Conoy township — 19th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manheim borough — 17th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Denver borough — 13th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Adamstown borough — 5th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Donegal township — 4th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
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