Age Vulnerability Index – LocalDataStory

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)

GA — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year

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: 39th percentile (among all U.S. counties).

These counties span the 0th percentile to the 100th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.

Well above the median25 (16%)

Above the median23 (14%)

Near the median29 (18%)

Below the median35 (22%)

Well below the median47 (30%)

Widest spread across these counties: Social Isolation — 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 — 25 counties (80th–100th percentile)

Talbot County — 100th percentile — Well above the median 4 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 (well above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Quitman County — 99th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Wilkes County — 99th 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), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above).

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Seminole 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.

Lincoln County — 97th 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.

Taliaferro County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure ‡ (well 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.

Crisp County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 3 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); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Baker County — 94th 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.

Worth County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 3 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.

Terrell County — 92nd 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) 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.

Twiggs County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Greene County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Taylor County — 89th 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); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Marion County — 88th percentile — Well above 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 (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

McIntosh County — 88th 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+ ‡ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Brooks County — 86th percentile — Well 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 (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Upson County — 85th percentile — Well above the median 3 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.

Rabun County — 85th 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Meriwether County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well 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.

Franklin County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.

Wilkinson 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); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Clay County — 82nd 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Warren County — 82nd 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.

Elbert County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 3 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.

Fannin County — 80th 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 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.

Above the median — 23 counties (60th–80th percentile)

Decatur County — 80th percentile — Above 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 (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Johnson County — 77th 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; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Union County — 74th percentile — Above the median 3 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.

Gilmer County — 73rd percentile — 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 Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Miller County — 72nd 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.

Telfair County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Glynn County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Habersham County — 71st percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Sumter County — 71st 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 (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Putnam County — 71st percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.

Ware County — 70th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Randolph County — 70th percentile — Above the median 3 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, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Hancock County — 69th 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.

Stephens County — 67th percentile — Above 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.

Early County — 67th percentile — Above the median 2 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Pulaski County — 66th percentile — 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); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Towns County — 66th percentile — Above the median 2 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.

Grady County — 65th percentile — Above the median 4 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.

Webster County — 61st percentile — Above the median 6 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (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.

White County — 61st percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Treutlen County — 61st percentile — Above the median 4 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.

Appling County — 60th percentile — Above 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.

Jenkins County — 60th percentile — Above 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.

Near the median — 29 counties (40th–60th percentile)

Dade County — 59th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Screven County — 57th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (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.

Candler County — 56th 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.

Jeff Davis County — 56th percentile — Near the median 2 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.

Troup County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Tattnall County — 55th 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+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Bacon County — 54th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Madison County — 54th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Bibb County — 54th percentile — Near 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); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Walker County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 1 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.

Chattooga County — 51st percentile — Near the median 2 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.

Dougherty County — 51st percentile — Near the median 2 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Thomas County — 50th percentile — Near 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Washington County — 49th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Burke County — 49th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Colquitt County — 49th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Hart County — 48th percentile — Near the median 4 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.

Macon County — 47th percentile — Near the median 2 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.

Wheeler County — 47th 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.

Berrien County — 46th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Wilcox County — 45th 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.

Bleckley 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Toombs County — 45th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Wayne County — 45th 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.

Spalding County — 44th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (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.

Dooly County — 44th percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Morgan County — 43rd percentile — Near 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 Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Turner County — 41st percentile — Near the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Montgomery County — 40th percentile — Near the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Below the median — 35 counties (20th–40th percentile)

Haralson County — 40th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Jefferson County — 40th 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.

Crawford County — 39th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Peach County — 39th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Stewart County — 39th percentile — Below 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Pickens County — 38th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Mitchell County — 38th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well 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.

Atkinson County — 38th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Fayette County — 37th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Heard County — 36th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Tift County — 34th percentile — Below 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Laurens County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 2 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.

Dodge County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 4 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.

Polk County — 31st percentile — Below the median 3 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.

Floyd County — 31st percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Emanuel County — 31st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Murray County — 30th percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Pierce County — 29th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Catoosa County — 29th percentile — Below the median 2 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.

Muscogee County — 28th 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+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Chatham County — 28th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Brantley County — 27th percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Pike County — 26th percentile — Below the median 2 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.

Clinch County — 26th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Richmond County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Harris County — 25th percentile — Below the median 3 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.

Oglethorpe County — 25th percentile — Below the median 4 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.

Baldwin County — 25th percentile — Below the median 2 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.

Bartow County — 24th percentile — 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.

Bulloch County — 22nd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged 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.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Camden County — 20th 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+ ‡ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Evans County — 20th percentile — Below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Hall County — 20th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

Jasper County — 20th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Carroll County — 20th percentile — Below 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.

Well below the median — 47 counties (0th–20th percentile)

Whitfield County — 20th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Lowndes County — 19th percentile — Well 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 ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Fulton County — 19th percentile — Well 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.

Lamar County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Gordon County — 18th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Effingham 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.

McDuffie County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.

Calhoun County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Liberty County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 1 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+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Ben Hill County — 17th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

DeKalb County — 16th percentile — Well 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.

Walton County — 16th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Clarke County — 16th percentile — Well below 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.

Clayton County — 15th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Health, Disability & Isolation (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

Coweta County — 14th 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.

Jones County — 14th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.

Banks County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Echols County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Lanier County — 13th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Glascock County — 12th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Rockdale 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.

Lumpkin County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 3 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.

Dawson County — 11th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Newton County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Charlton County — 10th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Cherokee County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.

Butts County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 4 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.

Coffee County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Schley County — 9th percentile — Well 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.

Irwin County — 9th percentile — Well below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Paulding County — 8th 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.

Barrow 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.

Bryan County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.

Chattahoochee County — 6th percentile — Well below the median 5 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.

Cook County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Lee County — 5th 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.

Douglas County — 5th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.

Henry County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.

Houston County — 4th percentile — Well 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.

Gwinnett County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 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.

Cobb County — 4th percentile — Well below the median 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.

Columbia County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 1 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.

Oconee County — 3rd percentile — Well below the median 2 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.

Monroe County — 3rd 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.

Forsyth County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 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.

Jackson County — 2nd percentile — Well below the median 2 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.

Long County — 0th percentile — Well below the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →

Near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, 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 all U.S. counties.

Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.