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

Lycoming County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Lycoming County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Anthony township — 10 (Lower)Armstrong township — 29 (Lower-middle)Bastress township — 80 (Upper-middle)Brady township — 18 (Lower)Brown township — 59 (Middle)Cascade township — 45 (Middle)Clinton township — 18 (Lower)Cogan House township — 83 (Higher)Cummings township — 98 (Higher)Duboistown borough — 33 (Lower-middle)Eldred township — 44 (Lower-middle)Fairfield township — 60 (Middle)Franklin township — 86 (Higher)Gamble township — 69 (Upper-middle)Hepburn township — 88 (Higher)Hughesville borough — 23 (Lower)Jackson township — 12 (Lower)Jersey Shore borough — 32 (Lower-middle)Jordan township — 46 (Middle)Lewis township — 24 (Lower)Limestone township — 85 (Higher)Loyalsock township — 97 (Higher)Lycoming township — 14 (Lower)McHenry township — 97 (Higher)McIntyre township — 56 (Middle)McNett township — 72 (Upper-middle)Mifflin township — 37 (Lower-middle)Mill Creek township — 38 (Lower-middle)Montgomery borough — 21 (Lower)Montoursville borough — 93 (Higher)Moreland township — 36 (Lower-middle)Muncy borough — 79 (Upper-middle)Muncy township — 76 (Upper-middle)Muncy Creek township — 39 (Lower-middle)Nippenose township — 79 (Upper-middle)Old Lycoming township — 68 (Middle)Penn township — 68 (Middle)Piatt township — 76 (Upper-middle)Picture Rocks borough — 7 (Lower)Pine township — 86 (Higher)Plunketts Creek township — 34 (Lower-middle)Porter township — 84 (Higher)Salladasburg borough — 31 (Lower-middle)Shrewsbury township — 49 (Middle)South Williamsport borough — 56 (Middle)Susquehanna township — 65 (Middle)Upper Fairfield township — 81 (Upper-middle)Washington township — 86 (Higher)Watson township — 22 (Lower)Williamsport — 70 (Upper-middle)Wolf township — 77 (Upper-middle)Woodward township — 53 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (7 to 24)Lower-middle (29 to 44)Middle (45 to 68)Upper-middle (69 to 81)Higher (83 to 98)
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: 58th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 7th percentile to the 98th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median13 (25%)
Above the median12 (23%)
Near the median8 (15%)
Below the median13 (25%)
Well below the median6 (12%)
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 — 13 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Cummings township — 98th percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
McHenry township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Loyalsock township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montoursville borough — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hepburn township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Franklin township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Pine township — 86th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Washington township — 86th 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+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Limestone township — 85th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Porter township — 84th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cogan House township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upper Fairfield township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bastress township — 80th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 12 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Muncy borough — 79th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nippenose township — 79th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wolf township — 77th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Piatt township — 76th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Muncy township — 76th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
McNett township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Williamsport — 70th percentile — Above the median 2 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.
Gamble township — 69th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Old Lycoming township — 68th 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Penn township — 68th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Susquehanna township — 65th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairfield township — 60th 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.
Near the median — 8 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Brown township — 59th percentile — Near 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.
McIntyre township — 56th percentile — Near the median 7 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.
South Williamsport borough — 56th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Woodward township — 53rd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (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.
Shrewsbury township — 49th 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.
Jordan township — 46th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Cascade township — 45th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eldred township — 44th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Muncy Creek township — 39th percentile — Below 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.
Mill Creek township — 38th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mifflin township — 37th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Moreland township — 36th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Plunketts Creek township — 34th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Duboistown borough — 33rd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jersey Shore borough — 32nd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Salladasburg borough — 31st percentile — Below the median 10 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Armstrong township — 29th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Lewis township — 24th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hughesville borough — 23rd percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Watson township — 22nd percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montgomery borough — 21st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 6 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Brady township — 18th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Clinton township — 18th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Lycoming township — 14th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jackson township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Anthony township — 10th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Picture Rocks borough — 7th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
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