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

WA — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
WA — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Adams County — 7 (Lower)Asotin County — 84 (Higher)Benton County — 33 (Lower-middle)Chelan County — 67 (Upper-middle)Clallam County — 88 (Higher)Clark County — 13 (Lower)Columbia County — 59 (Middle)Cowlitz County — 48 (Middle)Douglas County — 51 (Middle)Ferry County — 74 (Upper-middle)Franklin County — 7 (Lower)Garfield County — 67 (Upper-middle)Grant County — 31 (Lower-middle)Grays Harbor County — 66 (Middle)Island County — 68 (Upper-middle)Jefferson County — 86 (Higher)King County — 11 (Lower)Kitsap County — 18 (Lower-middle)Kittitas County — 9 (Lower)Klickitat County — 59 (Middle)Lewis County — 80 (Upper-middle)Lincoln County — 94 (Higher)Mason County — 72 (Upper-middle)Okanogan County — 83 (Higher)Pend Oreille County — 92 (Higher)Pierce County — 14 (Lower-middle)San Juan County — 71 (Upper-middle)Skagit County — 68 (Upper-middle)Skamania County — 56 (Middle)Snohomish County — 8 (Lower)Spokane County — 29 (Lower-middle)Stevens County — 56 (Middle)Thurston County — 30 (Lower-middle)Wahkiakum County — 96 (Higher)Walla Walla County — 47 (Middle)Whatcom County — 37 (Lower-middle)Whitman County — 10 (Lower)Yakima County — 29 (Lower-middle)Pacific County — 87 (Higher)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (7 to 13)Lower-middle (14 to 37)Middle (47 to 66)Upper-middle (67 to 80)Higher (83 to 96)
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.
Median county: 56th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 7th percentile to the 96th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Pacific County is marked below — Well above the median.
Well above the median9 (23%) ◀ Pacific County
Above the median8 (21%)
Near the median7 (18%)
Below the median6 (15%)
Well below the median9 (23%)
Widest spread across these counties: Demographic Aging Pressure — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked counties here.
AVI ranks each county'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.

Pacific County — by county subdivision

Median county subdivision: 83rd percentile (among all U.S. county subdivisions).
These county subdivisions span the 37th percentile to the 94th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median2 (50%)
Above the median1 (25%)
Near the median0 (0%)
Below the median1 (25%)
Well below the median0 (0%)
Widest spread across these county subdivisions: Health, Disability & Isolation — 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 — 9 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Wahkiakum County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lincoln County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pend Oreille County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clallam County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Pacific County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Jefferson County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Asotin County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Okanogan County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Lewis County — 80th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 8 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Ferry County — 74th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Mason County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Juan County — 71st percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Skagit County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Island County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Chelan County — 67th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Garfield County — 67th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grays Harbor County — 66th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 7 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Columbia County — 59th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Klickitat County — 59th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Skamania County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stevens County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Douglas County — 51st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cowlitz County — 48th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Walla Walla County — 47th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 6 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Whatcom County — 37th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Benton County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grant County — 31st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Thurston County — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Spokane County — 29th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
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.
Yakima County — 29th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Well below the median — 9 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Kitsap County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Pierce County — 14th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Clark County — 13th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
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.
King County — 11th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
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.
Whitman County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Kittitas County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Snohomish County — 8th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
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.
Adams County — 7th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
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.
Franklin County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
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. counties.
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