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
- Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
- De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
- Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
- Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
- Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
- Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
- Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
- Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
- Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
- Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)
50,000-99,999
Highest
- Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
- Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
- Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
- Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
- Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
- Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
- Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
- Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
- Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
- Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)
100,000-299,999
Highest
- Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
- Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
- Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
- Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
- Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
- Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
- Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
- Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
- St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
- Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)
300,000 and higher
Highest
- Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
- Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
- Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
- Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
- Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
- Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
- Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
- Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
- Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
- Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
Luzerne County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Luzerne County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (3 to 28)Lower-middle (30 to 51)Middle (52 to 64)Upper-middle (66 to 78)Higher (78 to 97)
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.
Median county subdivision: 60th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 3rd percentile to the 97th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
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 — 14 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Nescopeck borough — 97th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Hazle township — 96th 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 (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shickshinny borough — 95th percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Exeter borough — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dallas township — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Larksville borough — 91st percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Hanover township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wilkes-Barre township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kingston borough — 91st 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.
Jenkins township — 89th 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Black Creek township — 87th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Wilkes-Barre — 86th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kingston township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conyngham borough — 80th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 24 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Butler township — 80th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Union township — 78th percentile — 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 Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plains township — 78th percentile — Above the median 3 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 ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Wyoming borough — 78th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Luzerne borough — 77th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Pittston township — 77th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hazleton — 76th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pringle borough — 75th 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairmount township — 75th percentile — Above the median 6 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 ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
White Haven borough — 73rd percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newport township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Foster township — 73rd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plymouth borough — 73rd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Nanticoke — 71st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wyoming borough — 71st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Swoyersville borough — 69th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Pittston — 66th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Exeter township — 64th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Hunlock township — 63rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Freeland borough — 62nd percentile — Above the median 7 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.
Avoca borough — 62nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dallas borough — 62nd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Huntington township — 61st 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+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Salem township — 60th percentile — Above the median 4 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.
Near the median — 17 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Laflin borough — 59th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nuangola borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Ross township — 57th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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 Pittston borough — 57th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jeddo borough — 56th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well 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.
Lehman township — 55th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Harveys Lake borough — 54th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sugarloaf township — 52nd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plymouth township — 51st percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (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.
New Columbus borough — 49th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bear Creek township — 49th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Slocum township — 48th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Penn Lake Park borough — 47th 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.
Wright township — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklin township — 45th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Duryea borough — 45th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Edwardsville borough — 44th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Below the median — 11 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Ashley borough — 39th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Laurel Run borough — 38th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (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.
Conyngham township — 33rd percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake township — 32nd percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Hazleton borough — 31st percentile — Below 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.
Sugar Notch borough — 30th percentile — Below 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.
Jackson township — 28th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dupont borough — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hughestown borough — 23rd percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Nescopeck township — 23rd percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rice township — 20th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 10 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Forty Fort borough — 19th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dennison township — 19th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Buck township — 17th percentile — Well 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.
Courtdale borough — 17th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yatesville borough — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Warrior Run borough — 15th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hollenback township — 14th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dorrance township — 11th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairview township — 11th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bear Creek Village borough — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 3 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.
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.