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

CO — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
CO — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Adams County — 22 (Lower-middle)Alamosa County — 38 (Lower-middle)Arapahoe County — 25 (Lower-middle)Archuleta County — 87 (Higher)Baca County — 94 (Higher)Bent County — 62 (Upper-middle)Boulder County — 37 (Lower-middle)Broomfield County — 19 (Lower-middle)Chaffee County — 54 (Middle)Cheyenne County — 5 (Lower)Clear Creek County — 52 (Middle)Conejos County — 86 (Higher)Costilla County — 78 (Upper-middle)Crowley County — 46 (Middle)Custer County — 79 (Upper-middle)Delta County — 100 (Higher)Denver County — 41 (Middle)Dolores County — 90 (Higher)Douglas County — 3 (Lower)Eagle County — 0 (Lower)Elbert County — 29 (Lower-middle)El Paso County — 14 (Lower)Fremont County — 73 (Upper-middle)Garfield County — 21 (Lower-middle)Gilpin County — 63 (Upper-middle)Grand County — 6 (Lower)Gunnison County — 11 (Lower)Hinsdale County — 32 (Lower-middle)Huerfano County — 95 (Higher)Jackson County — 81 (Higher)Jefferson County — 33 (Lower-middle)Kiowa County — 46 (Middle)Kit Carson County — 56 (Middle)Lake County — 16 (Lower)La Plata County — 35 (Lower-middle)Larimer County — 44 (Middle)Las Animas County — 97 (Higher)Lincoln County — 51 (Middle)Logan County — 59 (Middle)Mesa County — 76 (Upper-middle)Mineral County — 70 (Upper-middle)Moffat County — 10 (Lower)Montezuma County — 83 (Higher)Montrose County — 84 (Higher)Morgan County — 57 (Middle)Otero County — 89 (Higher)Ouray County — 43 (Middle)Park County — 40 (Middle)Phillips County — 92 (Higher)Pitkin County — 30 (Lower-middle)Prowers County — 98 (Higher)Pueblo County — 75 (Upper-middle)Rio Blanco County — 13 (Lower)Rio Grande County — 68 (Upper-middle)Routt County — 17 (Lower)Saguache County — 67 (Upper-middle)San Juan County — 24 (Lower-middle)San Miguel County — 8 (Lower)Sedgwick County — 60 (Upper-middle)Summit County — 2 (Lower)Teller County — 46 (Middle)Washington County — 65 (Upper-middle)Weld County — 27 (Lower-middle)Yuma County — 71 (Upper-middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 17)Lower-middle (19 to 38)Middle (40 to 59)Upper-middle (60 to 79)Higher (81 to 100)
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 to see its overall percentile and theme scores. Some counties have county-subdivision or census-tract detail loaded — clicking one goes straight to whichever it has.

Median county: 48th percentile (among counties in CO).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median13 (20%)
Above the median13 (20%)
Near the median12 (19%)
Below the median13 (20%)
Well below the median13 (20%)
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.
Well above the median — 13 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Delta County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Prowers County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Las Animas County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Huerfano County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Baca County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Phillips County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dolores County — 90th 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.
Otero County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Archuleta County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Conejos County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montrose County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Montezuma County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jackson County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Above the median — 13 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Custer County — 79th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Costilla County — 78th percentile — 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 (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mesa County — 76th percentile — 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.
Pueblo County — 75th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Fremont County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yuma County — 71st percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mineral County — 70th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Rio Grande County — 68th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Saguache County — 67th percentile — Above the median 4 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+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Washington County — 65th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Gilpin County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Bent County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Sedgwick County — 60th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 12 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Logan County — 59th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Morgan County — 57th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Kit Carson County — 56th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Chaffee County — 54th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clear Creek County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Lincoln County — 51st percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Crowley County — 46th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Kiowa County — 46th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (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.
Teller County — 46th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Larimer County — 44th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Ouray County — 43rd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Denver County — 41st percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Below the median — 13 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Park County — 40th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alamosa County — 38th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Boulder County — 37th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
La Plata County — 35th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Jefferson County — 33rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
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.
Hinsdale County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Pitkin County — 30th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Elbert County — 29th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Weld County — 27th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Arapahoe County — 25th percentile — 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.
San Juan County — 24th percentile — Below the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Adams County — 22nd 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.
Garfield County — 21st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 13 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Broomfield County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Routt County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Lake County — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged 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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
El Paso County — 14th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Rio Blanco County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gunnison County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Moffat County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
San Miguel County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Grand County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Cheyenne County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Douglas County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
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.
Summit County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Eagle County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
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 counties in CO.
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