About this index & how it's been checked

The Aging Vulnerability Index (AVI) is this platform's own construction, modeled on the CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index methodology but not a CDC product and not independently validated. It combines Census ACS data on the population 65 and older — demographic aging pressure, economic precarity, health/disability/isolation, and housing/transportation burden — into a single percentile ranking of U.S. counties. The underlying inputs are official Census data; the index construction and weighting are this platform's own.

Reference-county check

A face-validity check against real counties with well-documented age profiles — the same method used to calibrate this platform's seasonal-community threshold. Higher percentile = more aging-vulnerable.

  • ✓ Sumter County, FL — 79.8th percentile (expected HIGH, The Villages — often cited as the oldest-median-age U.S. county)
  • ✓ Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Citrus County, FL — 88.1th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Highlands County, FL — 95.9th percentile (expected HIGH, Retirement destination)
  • ✓ Brazos County, TX — 17.0th percentile (expected LOW, Texas A&M)
  • ✓ Story County, IA — 8.9th percentile (expected LOW, Iowa State)
  • ✓ Whitman County, WA — 10.3th percentile (expected LOW, Washington State University)
  • ✓ Tompkins County, NY — 7.6th percentile (expected LOW, Cornell)

Highest / lowest AVI by county population

Under 50,000

Highest
  1. Catron County, NM — 100.0th pctile (pop. 3,743)
  2. De Baca County, NM — 99.9th pctile (pop. 1,576)
  3. Ozark County, MO — 99.8th pctile (pop. 8,873)
  4. Scott County, VA — 99.6th pctile (pop. 21,479)
  5. Harney County, OR — 99.6th pctile (pop. 7,499)
Lowest
  1. Martin County, TX — 0.0th pctile (pop. 5,218)
  2. Jim Hogg County, TX — 0.1th pctile (pop. 4,727)
  3. Haskell County, KS — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,641)
  4. Hanson County, SD — 0.1th pctile (pop. 3,472)
  5. Trousdale County, TN — 0.2th pctile (pop. 11,957)

50,000-99,999

Highest
  1. Nye County, NV — 96.7th pctile (pop. 54,344)
  2. Gila County, AZ — 96.7th pctile (pop. 53,795)
  3. Raleigh County, WV — 96.0th pctile (pop. 73,195)
  4. Wilkes County, NC — 95.6th pctile (pop. 65,935)
  5. Pittsylvania County, VA — 94.0th pctile (pop. 59,856)
Lowest
  1. Oldham County, KY — 0.0th pctile (pop. 69,257)
  2. Eagle County, CO — 0.2th pctile (pop. 55,135)
  3. Lincoln County, SD — 0.5th pctile (pop. 70,638)
  4. Johnson County, MO — 0.9th pctile (pop. 54,732)
  5. Lafayette County, MS — 1.3th pctile (pop. 58,327)

100,000-299,999

Highest
  1. Highlands County, FL — 95.9th pctile (pop. 105,702)
  2. Mohave County, AZ — 93.9th pctile (pop. 220,517)
  3. Douglas County, OR — 93.0th pctile (pop. 112,072)
  4. Charlotte County, FL — 90.8th pctile (pop. 201,064)
  5. Indian River County, FL — 90.3th pctile (pop. 166,936)
Lowest
  1. Union County, NC — 0.8th pctile (pop. 250,958)
  2. Scott County, MN — 1.1th pctile (pop. 154,557)
  3. Williamson County, TN — 1.2th pctile (pop. 260,351)
  4. St. Mary's County, MD — 1.3th pctile (pop. 115,126)
  5. Dallas County, IA — 1.5th pctile (pop. 107,968)

300,000 and higher

Highest
  1. Pinellas County, FL — 90.1th pctile (pop. 963,481)
  2. Collier County, FL — 89.9th pctile (pop. 398,291)
  3. Marion County, FL — 87.1th pctile (pop. 400,078)
  4. Lee County, FL — 86.1th pctile (pop. 817,666)
  5. Palm Beach County, FL — 85.0th pctile (pop. 1,533,806)
Lowest
  1. Hamilton County, IN — 0.6th pctile (pop. 365,056)
  2. Prince William Count, VA — 2.1th pctile (pop. 488,880)
  3. Davis County, UT — 2.1th pctile (pop. 370,924)
  4. Douglas County, CO — 2.2th pctile (pop. 377,150)
  5. Loudoun County, VA — 2.4th pctile (pop. 432,998)
Compare
NationallyWithin its state

MI — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
MI — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Alcona County — 89 (Higher)Alger County — 71 (Upper-middle)Allegan County — 8 (Lower)Alpena County — 87 (Higher)Antrim County — 61 (Middle)Arenac County — 88 (Higher)Baraga County — 72 (Upper-middle)Barry County — 33 (Lower-middle)Bay County — 64 (Middle)Benzie County — 58 (Middle)Berrien County — 80 (Upper-middle)Branch County — 46 (Lower-middle)Calhoun County — 38 (Lower-middle)Cass County — 77 (Upper-middle)Charlevoix County — 73 (Upper-middle)Cheboygan County — 84 (Upper-middle)Chippewa County — 45 (Lower-middle)Clare County — 96 (Higher)Clinton County — 15 (Lower)Crawford County — 81 (Upper-middle)Delta County — 87 (Higher)Dickinson County — 68 (Upper-middle)Eaton County — 45 (Lower-middle)Emmet County — 59 (Middle)Genesee County — 47 (Lower-middle)Gladwin County — 93 (Higher)Gogebic County — 88 (Higher)Grand Traverse Count — 30 (Lower-middle)Gratiot County — 23 (Lower)Hillsdale County — 64 (Middle)Houghton County — 20 (Lower)Huron County — 88 (Higher)Ingham County — 19 (Lower)Ionia County — 5 (Lower)Iosco County — 95 (Higher)Iron County — 91 (Higher)Isabella County — 7 (Lower)Jackson County — 27 (Lower-middle)Kalamazoo County — 10 (Lower)Kalkaska County — 55 (Middle)Kent County — 8 (Lower)Keweenaw County — 73 (Upper-middle)Lake County — 95 (Higher)Lapeer County — 35 (Lower-middle)Leelanau County — 56 (Middle)Lenawee County — 21 (Lower)Livingston County — 11 (Lower)Luce County — 32 (Lower-middle)Mackinac County — 91 (Higher)Macomb County — 39 (Lower-middle)Manistee County — 67 (Upper-middle)Marquette County — 26 (Lower)Mason County — 83 (Upper-middle)Mecosta County — 66 (Middle)Menominee County — 90 (Higher)Midland County — 51 (Middle)Missaukee County — 58 (Middle)Monroe County — 39 (Lower-middle)Montcalm County — 36 (Lower-middle)Montmorency County — 87 (Higher)Muskegon County — 34 (Lower-middle)Newaygo County — 52 (Middle)Oakland County — 25 (Lower)Oceana County — 59 (Middle)Ogemaw County — 86 (Upper-middle)Ontonagon County — 75 (Upper-middle)Osceola County — 78 (Upper-middle)Oscoda County — 99 (Higher)Otsego County — 21 (Lower)Ottawa County — 8 (Lower)Presque Isle County — 88 (Higher)Roscommon County — 90 (Higher)Saginaw County — 72 (Upper-middle)St. Clair County — 49 (Lower-middle)St. Joseph County — 65 (Middle)Sanilac County — 84 (Upper-middle)Schoolcraft County — 77 (Upper-middle)Shiawassee County — 41 (Lower-middle)Tuscola County — 59 (Middle)Van Buren County — 42 (Lower-middle)Washtenaw County — 8 (Lower)Wayne County — 51 (Middle)Wexford County — 52 (Middle)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (5 to 26)Lower-middle (27 to 49)Middle (51 to 66)Upper-middle (67 to 86)Higher (87 to 99)
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: 59th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 5th percentile to the 99th percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median22 (27%)
Above the median17 (20%)
Near the median18 (22%)
Below the median15 (18%)
Well below the median11 (13%)
Widest spread across these counties: Housing & Transportation, 65+ — 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 — 22 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Oscoda 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+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above) and Social Isolation (above).
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clare County — 96th percentile — Well above the median 1 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); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iosco County — 95th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lake 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) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Gladwin County — 93rd percentile — Well 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 Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Iron County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Mackinac County — 91st percentile — Well above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Menominee County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 1 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+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Roscommon County — 90th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Alcona County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 1 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+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Presque Isle County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Gogebic County — 88th 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 (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Huron County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Arenac County — 88th percentile — Well above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Montmorency County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alpena County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Delta County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ogemaw County — 86th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cheboygan County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Sanilac County — 84th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mason County — 83rd percentile — Well above the median 1 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.
Crawford County — 81st percentile — Well above the median 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Above the median — 17 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Berrien County — 80th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Osceola County — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Schoolcraft County — 77th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above) and Economic Precarity, 65+ (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cass County — 77th 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 ‡ (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ontonagon County — 75th percentile — Above the median 1 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.
Keweenaw County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Charlevoix County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well 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.
Saginaw County — 72nd percentile — Above 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); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Baraga County — 72nd percentile — Above the median 3 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+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Alger County — 71st percentile — 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Dickinson County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 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.
Manistee County — 67th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mecosta County — 66th 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+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Joseph County — 65th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (well above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Bay County — 64th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Hillsdale County — 64th percentile — Above 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, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Antrim County — 61st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Near the median — 18 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Tuscola County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Emmet County — 59th percentile — Near the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oceana County — 59th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Benzie County — 58th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Missaukee County — 58th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Leelanau County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Kalkaska County — 55th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Wexford County — 52nd percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Newaygo County — 52nd percentile — Near 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 Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wayne County — 51st 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); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Midland County — 51st 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 and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
St. Clair County — 49th 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+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Genesee County — 47th 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 ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Branch County — 46th 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Chippewa County — 45th 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 Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Eaton County — 45th 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.
Van Buren County — 42nd 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Shiawassee County — 41st 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+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 15 counties (20th–40th percentile)
Macomb County — 39th percentile — Below the median 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.
Monroe County — 39th 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.
Calhoun County — 38th 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.
Montcalm County — 36th 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+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lapeer County — 35th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Muskegon County — 34th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Barry County — 33rd percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Luce County — 32nd percentile — Below the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Grand Traverse Count — 30th percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Jackson County — 27th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Marquette County — 26th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Oakland County — 25th percentile — 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.
Gratiot County — 23rd percentile — Below the median 1 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.
Lenawee County — 21st percentile — Below the median 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.
Otsego County — 21st percentile — Below the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Well below the median — 11 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Houghton County — 20th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Ingham County — 19th percentile — Well 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clinton County — 15th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Livingston County — 11th 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.
Kalamazoo County — 10th percentile — Well 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.
Washtenaw County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 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.
Kent County — 8th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation.
Allegan County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Ottawa County — 8th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Isabella County — 7th percentile — Well below the median 1 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.
Ionia County — 5th percentile — Well 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.
AVI = a candidate Aging Vulnerability Index, computed by this platform from American Community Survey 2020–2024 5-year estimates, following the same method shape (percentile rank -> theme sum -> re-rank -> overall) as the CDC/ATSDR SVI this platform also recomputes — but AVI itself has no published ground truth to validate against. It is a first-cut, directional design. Percentiles rank each county against all U.S. counties.
Several of AVI's 12 input signals carry a documented high margin of error at this grain (most notably lack of health insurance, 65+) and are kept in the index with a flag rather than dropped, to preserve variable coverage. A county's flag count (shown per-county above) is a direct measure of how much its rank should be read as directional rather than precise.

Scroll to Top