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

York County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
York County — Aging Vulnerability Index by county subdivision
Carroll township — 57 (Upper-middle)Chanceford township — 27 (Lower-middle)Codorus township — 51 (Middle)Conewago township — 20 (Lower-middle)Cross Roads borough — 70 (Upper-middle)Dallastown borough — 6 (Lower)Delta borough — 53 (Upper-middle)Dillsburg borough — 11 (Lower)Dover borough — 35 (Middle)Dover township — 92 (Higher)East Hopewell township — 72 (Higher)East Manchester township — 29 (Lower-middle)East Prospect borough — 31 (Middle)Fairview township — 31 (Middle)Fawn township — 52 (Upper-middle)Fawn Grove borough — 55 (Upper-middle)Felton borough — 12 (Lower)Franklin township — 16 (Lower)Franklintown borough — 16 (Lower)Glen Rock borough — 23 (Lower-middle)Goldsboro borough — 29 (Middle)Hallam borough — 9 (Lower)Hanover borough — 95 (Higher)Heidelberg township — 61 (Upper-middle)Hellam township — 29 (Lower-middle)Hopewell township — 26 (Lower-middle)Jackson township — 56 (Upper-middle)Jacobus borough — 17 (Lower-middle)Jefferson borough — 66 (Upper-middle)Lewisberry borough — 15 (Lower)Loganville borough — 27 (Lower-middle)Lower Chanceford township — 94 (Higher)Lower Windsor township — 21 (Lower-middle)Manchester borough — 49 (Middle)Manchester township — 64 (Upper-middle)Manheim township — 29 (Lower-middle)Monaghan township — 43 (Middle)Mount Wolf borough — 58 (Upper-middle)Newberry township — 21 (Lower-middle)New Freedom borough — 22 (Lower-middle)New Salem borough — 15 (Lower)North Codorus township — 31 (Middle)North Hopewell township — 41 (Middle)North York borough — 16 (Lower)Paradise township — 51 (Middle)Peach Bottom township — 36 (Middle)Penn township — 74 (Higher)Railroad borough — 8 (Lower)Red Lion borough — 48 (Middle)Seven Valleys borough — 4 (Lower)Shrewsbury borough — 93 (Higher)Shrewsbury township — 97 (Higher)Springettsbury township — 88 (Higher)Springfield township — 13 (Lower)Spring Garden township — 36 (Middle)Spring Grove borough — 33 (Middle)Stewartstown borough — 96 (Higher)Warrington township — 81 (Higher)Washington township — 91 (Higher)Wellsville borough — 19 (Lower-middle)West Manchester township — 77 (Higher)West Manheim township — 54 (Upper-middle)West York borough — 48 (Middle)Windsor borough — 14 (Lower)Windsor township — 75 (Higher)Winterstown borough — 62 (Upper-middle)Wrightsville borough — 20 (Lower-middle)Yoe borough — 13 (Lower)York — 70 (Upper-middle)York township — 83 (Higher)Yorkana borough — 51 (Upper-middle)York Haven borough — 98 (Higher)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (4 to 16)Lower-middle (17 to 29)Middle (29 to 51)Upper-middle (51 to 70)Higher (72 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: 38th percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 4th percentile to the 98th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median11 (15%)
Above the median10 (14%)
Near the median15 (21%)
Below the median18 (25%)
Well below the median18 (25%)
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 — 11 counties (80th–100th percentile)
York Haven borough — 98th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shrewsbury township — 97th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stewartstown borough — 96th 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); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hanover borough — 95th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.
Lower Chanceford township — 94th percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shrewsbury borough — 93rd 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.
Dover township — 92nd 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.
Washington township — 91st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Springettsbury township — 88th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
York township — 83rd percentile — Well above the median
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Warrington township — 81st percentile — Well above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 10 counties (60th–80th percentile)
West Manchester township — 77th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Windsor township — 75th percentile — Above the median 4 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; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Penn township — 74th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
East Hopewell township — 72nd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
York — 70th percentile — 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cross Roads borough — 70th percentile — Above the median 9 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.
Jefferson borough — 66th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manchester township — 64th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Winterstown borough — 62nd percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Heidelberg township — 61st percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 15 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Mount Wolf borough — 58th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Carroll township — 57th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jackson township — 56th percentile — Near the median 5 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.
Fawn Grove borough — 55th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
West Manheim township — 54th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Delta borough — 53rd percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Fawn township — 52nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (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.
Yorkana borough — 51st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Paradise township — 51st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Codorus township — 51st percentile — Near the median 6 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.
Manchester borough — 49th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Red Lion borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
West York borough — 48th percentile — Near the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Monaghan township — 43rd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North Hopewell township — 41st percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 18 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Spring Garden township — 36th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Peach Bottom township — 36th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Dover borough — 35th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Spring Grove borough — 33rd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
East Prospect borough — 31st 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.
North Codorus township — 31st percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fairview township — 31st percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Goldsboro borough — 29th percentile — Below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
East Manchester township — 29th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Manheim township — 29th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hellam township — 29th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Loganville borough — 27th percentile — Below the median 7 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.
Chanceford township — 27th percentile — Below the median 4 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.
Hopewell township — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 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.
Glen Rock borough — 23rd percentile — Below the median 8 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.
New Freedom borough — 22nd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lower Windsor township — 21st percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newberry township — 21st percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Well below the median — 18 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Conewago township — 20th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Wrightsville borough — 20th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wellsville borough — 19th percentile — Well below the median 9 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jacobus borough — 17th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklintown borough — 16th percentile — Well below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
North York borough — 16th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklin township — 16th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lewisberry borough — 15th percentile — Well below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
New Salem borough — 15th 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.
Windsor borough — 14th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Springfield township — 13th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yoe borough — 13th percentile — Well below the median 7 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.
Felton borough — 12th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dillsburg borough — 11th 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.
Hallam borough — 9th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Railroad borough — 8th percentile — Well below the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dallastown borough — 6th percentile — Well below the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Seven Valleys borough — 4th percentile — Well below the median 9 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