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

Marion County — Aging Vulnerability Index by census tract

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
Marion County — Aging Vulnerability Index by census tract
Tract 201.00 — 39 (Lower)Tract 202.00 — 50 (Middle)Tract 203.00 — 62 (Middle)Tract 204.00 — 83 (Upper-middle)Tract 205.00 — 48 (Lower-middle)Tract 206.00 — 48 (Lower-middle)Tract 207.00 — 15 (Lower)Tract 208.00 — 41 (Lower)Tract 209.00 — 43 (Lower)Tract 210.01 — 70 (Middle)Tract 210.02 — 48 (Lower-middle)Tract 211.00 — 84 (Higher)Tract 212.01 — 45 (Lower-middle)Tract 212.02 — 82 (Upper-middle)Tract 213.00 — 91 (Higher)Tract 214.00 — 85 (Higher)Tract 215.00 — 62 (Middle)Tract 216.01 — 78 (Upper-middle)Tract 216.02 — 84 (Higher)Tract 217.00 — 94 (Higher)Tract 218.00 — 73 (Upper-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (15 to 43)Lower-middle (45 to 48)Middle (50 to 70)Upper-middle (73 to 83)Higher (84 to 94)
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.

The panel shows the county overview. Click a tract for its own percentile and theme scores — the county overview stays visible alongside it for comparison.

← Back to county view
Median tract: 62nd percentile (among all U.S. tracts).
These tracts span the 15th percentile to the 94th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median7 (33%)
Above the median5 (24%)
Near the median7 (33%)
Below the median1 (5%)
Well below the median1 (5%)
Widest spread across these tracts: Economic Precarity, 65+ — this theme most separates the higher- and lower-ranked tracts here.
AVI ranks each tract'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.
Tract 217.00 — 94th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Tract 213.00 — 91st 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 214.00 — 85th percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Tract 211.00 — 84th percentile — Well above 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 216.02 — 84th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 204.00 — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Tract 212.02 — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Tract 216.01 — 78th percentile — Above the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Tract 218.00 — 73rd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 210.01 — 70th percentile — Above the median 5 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.
Tract 215.00 — 62nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Tract 203.00 — 62nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 202.00 — 50th percentile — Near the median 9 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.
Tract 210.02 — 48th percentile — Near 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.
Tract 205.00 — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Tract 206.00 — 48th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 212.01 — 45th percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 209.00 — 43rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 208.00 — 41st percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 201.00 — 39th percentile — Below the median 8 of 12 flagged
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tract 207.00 — 15th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
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 tract against all U.S. tracts.
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 tract's flag count (shown per-tract above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top