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

Washington County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Washington County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Allenport borough — 46 (Lower-middle)Amwell township — 72 (Upper-middle)Beallsville borough — 25 (Lower-middle)Bentleyville borough — 50 (Middle)Blaine township — 49 (Middle)Buffalo township — 12 (Lower)Burgettstown borough — 82 (Upper-middle)California borough — 56 (Middle)Canonsburg borough — 73 (Upper-middle)Canton township — 87 (Higher)Carroll township — 97 (Higher)Cecil township — 24 (Lower)Centerville borough — 18 (Lower)Charleroi borough — 86 (Higher)Chartiers township — 68 (Upper-middle)Claysville borough — 17 (Lower)Coal Center borough — 6 (Lower)Cokeburg borough — 44 (Lower-middle)Cross Creek township — 70 (Upper-middle)Deemston borough — 16 (Lower)Donegal township — 47 (Lower-middle)Donora borough — 96 (Higher)Dunlevy borough — 69 (Upper-middle)East Bethlehem township — 17 (Lower)East Finley township — 24 (Lower)East Washington borough — 57 (Middle)Elco borough — 42 (Lower-middle)Ellsworth borough — 25 (Lower-middle)Fallowfield township — 79 (Upper-middle)Finleyville borough — 38 (Lower-middle)Green Hills borough — no data (unmeasured)Hanover township — 99 (Higher)Hopewell township — 69 (Upper-middle)Houston borough — 93 (Higher)Independence township — 35 (Lower-middle)Jefferson township — 24 (Lower)Long Branch borough — 64 (Middle)McDonald borough — 64 (Middle)Marianna borough — 21 (Lower)Midway borough — 49 (Middle)Monongahela — 58 (Middle)Morris township — 33 (Lower-middle)Mount Pleasant township — 88 (Higher)New Eagle borough — 90 (Higher)North Bethlehem township — 12 (Lower)North Charleroi borough — 95 (Higher)North Franklin township — 96 (Higher)North Strabane township — 42 (Lower-middle)Nottingham township — 61 (Middle)Peters township — 38 (Lower-middle)Robinson township — 89 (Higher)Roscoe borough — 46 (Lower-middle)Smith township — 98 (Higher)Somerset township — 70 (Upper-middle)South Franklin township — 65 (Upper-middle)South Strabane township — 97 (Higher)Speers borough — 58 (Middle)Stockdale borough — 64 (Upper-middle)Twilight borough — 16 (Lower)Union township — 74 (Upper-middle)Washington — 46 (Lower-middle)West Bethlehem township — 58 (Middle)West Brownsville borough — 53 (Middle)West Finley township — 16 (Lower)West Middletown borough — 57 (Middle)West Pike Run township — 79 (Upper-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (6 to 24)Lower-middle (25 to 47)Middle (49 to 64)Upper-middle (64 to 82)Higher (86 to 99)No data
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: 57th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 6th percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median14 (22%)
Above the median15 (23%)
Near the median17 (26%)
Below the median10 (15%)
Well below the median9 (14%)
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)
Hanover township — 99th 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.
Smith township — 98th 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 ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
South Strabane township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Carroll township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 4 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.
North Franklin township — 96th percentile — Well above the median 6 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+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Donora borough — 96th percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
North Charleroi borough — 95th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Houston borough — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Eagle borough — 90th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Robinson township — 89th percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Mount Pleasant township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Canton township — 87th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Charleroi borough — 86th percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Burgettstown borough — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Above the median — 15 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Fallowfield township — 79th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Pike Run township — 79th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Union township — 74th percentile — 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.
Canonsburg borough — 73rd percentile — Above the median 3 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.
Amwell township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cross Creek township — 70th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Somerset township — 70th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hopewell township — 69th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dunlevy borough — 69th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Chartiers township — 68th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
South Franklin township — 65th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Stockdale borough — 64th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McDonald borough — 64th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Long Branch borough — 64th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nottingham township — 61st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Near the median — 17 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Monongahela — 58th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Speers borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 5 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 Bethlehem township — 58th percentile — Near the median 4 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.
West Middletown borough — 57th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Washington borough — 57th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
California borough — 56th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
West Brownsville borough — 53rd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bentleyville borough — 50th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Midway borough — 49th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Blaine township — 49th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Donegal township — 47th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Roscoe borough — 46th percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Allenport borough — 46th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Washington — 46th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Cokeburg borough — 44th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Strabane township — 42nd percentile — Near the median 4 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.
Elco borough — 42nd percentile — Near the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 10 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Peters township — 38th percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Finleyville borough — 38th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Independence township — 35th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Morris township — 33rd percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ellsworth borough — 25th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Beallsville borough — 25th percentile — Below the median 5 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.
Cecil township — 24th percentile — Below the median 4 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.
East Finley township — 24th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jefferson township — 24th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marianna borough — 21st percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ 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 — 9 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Centerville borough — 18th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Bethlehem township — 17th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Claysville borough — 17th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Deemston borough — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Twilight borough — 16th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Finley township — 16th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Buffalo township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
North Bethlehem township — 12th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Coal Center borough — 6th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
1 county unranked — insufficient data
These carry no percentile. Excluded from the bands, median and range above, and never shown as a low score.
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