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
- Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
- De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
- Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
- Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
- Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
- Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
- Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
- Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
- Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
- Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)
50,000-99,999
Highest
- Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
- Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
- Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
- Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
- Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
- Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
- Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
- Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
- Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
- Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)
100,000-299,999
Highest
- Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
- Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
- Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
- Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
- Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
- Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
- Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
- Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
- St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
- Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)
300,000 and higher
Highest
- Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
- Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
- Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
- Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
- Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
- Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
- Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
- Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
- Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
- Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
TX — Aging Vulnerability Index
Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
TX — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (0 to 19)Lower-middle (20 to 40)Middle (40 to 60)Upper-middle (60 to 80)Higher (80 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: 50th percentile (among counties in TX).
These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
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 — 51 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Presidio County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Jeff Davis County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 9 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hall County — 99th 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), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hemphill County — 99th 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), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marion County — 98th 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 Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Nolan County — 98th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Augustine County — 98th 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 Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Coleman County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 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 Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Goliad County — 97th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Aransas County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Llano County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Culberson County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Austin County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Comanche County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Delta County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Newton County — 94th 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.
Montague County — 94th percentile — Well above the median 2 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); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Floyd County — 93rd 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.
Duval County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Trinity County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Baylor County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Kimble County — 92nd percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.
Bailey County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kent County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well 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.
King County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 7 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.
Jackson County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Zapata County — 90th 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Refugio County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lamar County — 89th percentile — Well 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 (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wood County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Motley County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 6 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.
Eastland County — 87th 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 ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Leon County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 4 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+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Morris County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.
Houston County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Jacinto County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kinney County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cass County — 85th 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 Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Colorado County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Brown County — 85th percentile — Well 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); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Maverick County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Robertson County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brooks County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Gillespie County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Milam County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Donley County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 5 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.
Burleson County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
DeWitt County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Henderson County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Red River County — 81st percentile — Well above 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.
Val Verde County — 80th percentile — Well above the median 2 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 (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 51 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Mason County — 80th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stephens County — 79th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sabine County — 79th percentile — Above the median 4 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.
Kerr County — 79th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Tyler County — 78th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Limestone County — 78th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hood County — 77th 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.
Washington County — 77th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Palo Pinto County — 77th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Falls County — 76th percentile — Above 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); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cochran County — 76th 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 (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Camp County — 75th percentile — Above the median 4 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.
Knox County — 75th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Calhoun County — 75th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Loving County — 74th percentile — Above the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jasper County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Carson County — 74th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cameron County — 73rd percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Dimmit County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.
Terrell County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fisher County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Starr County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fayette County — 71st percentile — Above the median 2 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.
Roberts County — 71st percentile — Above the median 9 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.
Archer County — 70th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Live Oak County — 70th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Zavala County — 70th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Edwards County — 69th percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Panola County — 69th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jim Wells County — 68th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wharton County — 68th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
San Patricio County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Real County — 67th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Briscoe County — 67th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Hamilton County — 66th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Hill County — 66th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shelby County — 66th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Callahan County — 65th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Young County — 65th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Coke County — 64th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mills County — 64th percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cherokee County — 64th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (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.
Van Zandt County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hutchinson County — 63rd percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Foard County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 6 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.
Harrison County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Franklin County — 62nd percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Armstrong County — 61st percentile — Above the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Menard County — 61st percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Brewster County — 60th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Clay County — 60th percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Near the median — 50 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Nueces County — 60th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Schleicher County — 59th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bowie County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Terry County — 59th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lavaca County — 58th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hale County — 58th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Blanco County — 57th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bosque County — 57th percentile — Near the median 4 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.
Matagorda County — 57th percentile — Near the median 3 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+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Victoria County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jefferson County — 56th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Webb County — 55th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
Uvalde County — 55th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Throckmorton County — 55th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.
Deaf Smith County — 54th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gregg County — 54th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Social Isolation.
Irion County — 53rd percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Swisher County — 53rd percentile — Near 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tom Green County — 53rd percentile — Near 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; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bandera County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Freestone County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Dickens County — 51st 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.
Kenedy County — 51st percentile — Near the median 7 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Orange 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+ (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.
Hidalgo County — 50th percentile — Near the median 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.
El Paso County — 50th percentile — Near the median 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.
Medina County — 49th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Sutton County — 49th percentile — Near the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Upshur County — 49th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cottle County — 48th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lamb County — 48th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Potter County — 47th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Stonewall County — 47th percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Upton County — 47th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dawson County — 46th percentile — Near 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lee County — 46th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gonzales County — 45th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hockley County — 45th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Smith County — 45th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Social Isolation.
Runnels County — 44th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Burnet County — 44th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Concho County — 43rd 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.
Hopkins County — 43rd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Crosby County — 43rd percentile — Near the median 4 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.
Shackelford County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Crane County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Haskell County — 42nd percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Jack County — 41st percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kendall County — 41st percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wichita County — 40th percentile — Near 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.
Below the median — 51 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Hardeman County — 40th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
San Saba County — 40th percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Howard County — 39th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
La Salle County — 39th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cooke County — 38th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lampasas County — 38th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Nacogdoches County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Garza County — 37th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well 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.
Jones County — 37th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well 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.
Lipscomb County — 36th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Navarro County — 36th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lubbock County — 36th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Collingsworth County — 35th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rusk County — 35th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (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.
Childress County — 34th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (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.
Titus County — 34th percentile — 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.
Castro County — 34th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Glasscock County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Angelina County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Pecos County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rains County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McLennan County — 32nd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Grimes County — 31st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bexar County — 30th 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.
Grayson County — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fannin County — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Taylor County — 30th percentile — 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.
Hardin County — 29th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation.
Atascosa County — 29th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Galveston County — 28th 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.
Karnes County — 28th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wilbarger County — 28th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ector County — 27th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chambers County — 27th percentile — Below the median 2 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.
Sherman County — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wilson County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well 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.
Crockett County — 26th percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Erath County — 25th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hunt County — 25th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
McCulloch County — 25th percentile — Below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Parker County — 24th 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.
Andrews County — 24th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wheeler County — 23rd percentile — Below the median 3 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.
Parmer County — 23rd percentile — 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.
Harris County — 23rd percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Walker County — 22nd percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Randall County — 22nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Borden County — 21st percentile — Below the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Polk County — 21st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Kleberg County — 20th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Reeves County — 20th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 51 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Dallas County — 20th percentile — Well 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.
Gray County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.
Somervell County — 19th percentile — Well 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.
Wise County — 19th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Winkler County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Johnson County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Caldwell County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 2 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.
Anderson County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Guadalupe County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hartley County — 16th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Frio County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lynn County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Brazos County — 15th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Mitchell County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Willacy County — 14th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Ward County — 14th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Madison County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tarrant County — 13th 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.
Comal County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bell County — 12th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Moore County — 12th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Montgomery County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Oldham County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Midland County — 11th percentile — Well 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.
Bastrop County — 10th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Liberty County — 10th 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bee County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Yoakum County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Ellis County — 9th 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.
Coryell County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Hays County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (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.
Scurry County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Reagan County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Rockwall County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.
Hudspeth County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Williamson County — 6th 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.
Hansford County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
Fort Bend County — 5th 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.
Brazoria County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Kaufman County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
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.
Waller County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.
Gaines County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.
Dallam County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 5 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.
Travis County — 3rd 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.
Denton County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 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.
Collin County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 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.
Ochiltree County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 5 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.
McMullen County — 1st percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Sterling County — 1st percentile — Well below the median 6 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.
Jim Hogg County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Martin County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 2 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.
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 TX.
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.