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

PA — Aging Vulnerability Index

Candidate index, not validated against ground truth — 2020–2024 ACS 5-year
PA — Aging Vulnerability Index by county
Adams County — 47 (Lower-middle)Allegheny County — 57 (Lower-middle)Armstrong County — 79 (Upper-middle)Beaver County — 64 (Middle)Bedford County — 93 (Higher)Berks County — 52 (Lower-middle)Blair County — 74 (Upper-middle)Bradford County — 75 (Upper-middle)Bucks County — 28 (Lower)Butler County — 37 (Lower)Cambria County — 83 (Higher)Cameron County — 89 (Higher)Carbon County — 73 (Middle)Centre County — 24 (Lower)Chester County — 5 (Lower)Clarion County — 46 (Lower-middle)Clearfield County — 74 (Upper-middle)Clinton County — 78 (Upper-middle)Columbia County — 57 (Lower-middle)Crawford County — 86 (Higher)Cumberland County — 30 (Lower)Dauphin County — 43 (Lower)Delaware County — 30 (Lower)Elk County — 61 (Lower-middle)Erie County — 41 (Lower)Fayette County — 87 (Higher)Forest County — 77 (Upper-middle)Franklin County — 58 (Lower-middle)Fulton County — 90 (Higher)Greene County — 30 (Lower)Huntingdon County — 69 (Middle)Indiana County — 74 (Upper-middle)Jefferson County — 82 (Higher)Juniata County — 76 (Upper-middle)Lackawanna County — 71 (Middle)Lancaster County — 64 (Middle)Lawrence County — 90 (Higher)Lebanon County — 76 (Upper-middle)Lehigh County — 26 (Lower)Luzerne County — 62 (Middle)Lycoming County — 66 (Middle)McKean County — 48 (Lower-middle)Mercer County — 84 (Higher)Mifflin County — 82 (Higher)Monroe County — 32 (Lower)Montgomery County — 19 (Lower)Montour County — 54 (Lower-middle)Northampton County — 53 (Lower-middle)Northumberland Count — 75 (Upper-middle)Perry County — 46 (Lower-middle)Philadelphia County — 43 (Lower-middle)Pike County — 69 (Middle)Potter County — 81 (Higher)Schuylkill County — 68 (Middle)Snyder County — 79 (Upper-middle)Somerset County — 81 (Higher)Sullivan County — 82 (Higher)Susquehanna County — 85 (Higher)Tioga County — 73 (Middle)Union County — 66 (Middle)Venango County — 68 (Middle)Warren County — 74 (Upper-middle)Washington County — 70 (Middle)Wayne County — 75 (Upper-middle)Westmoreland County — 72 (Middle)Wyoming County — 56 (Lower-middle)York County — 39 (Lower)
Where this is
Shading: Aging Vulnerability Index
Lower (5 to 43)Lower-middle (43 to 61)Middle (62 to 73)Upper-middle (74 to 79)Higher (81 to 93)
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: 69th percentile (among all U.S. counties).
These counties span the 5th percentile to the 93rd percentile. The width of that range is the internal disparity.
Well above the median14 (21%)
Above the median28 (42%)
Near the median14 (21%)
Below the median9 (13%)
Well below the median2 (3%)
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 — 14 counties (80th–100th percentile)
Bedford County — 93rd percentile — Well above the median 1 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 (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fulton County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lawrence County — 90th percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cameron County — 89th percentile — Well above the median 4 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ ‡ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Fayette County — 87th percentile — Well above the median 1 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Crawford County — 86th percentile — Well above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Susquehanna County — 85th 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.
Mercer County — 84th percentile — Well 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+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Cambria County — 83rd 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.
Jefferson County — 82nd percentile — Well above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Mifflin County — 82nd percentile — Well 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.
Sullivan County — 82nd 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.
Somerset County — 81st 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Potter County — 81st 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 ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Housing & Transportation, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Above the median — 28 counties (60th–80th percentile)
Armstrong County — 79th percentile — 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 (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Snyder County — 79th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Clinton County — 78th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Forest County — 77th percentile — Above the median 3 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Social Isolation (well 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.
Lebanon County — 76th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Juniata County — 76th percentile — Above the median 2 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Northumberland Count — 75th 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.
Wayne County — 75th 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.
Bradford County — 75th percentile — Above the median 1 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.
Indiana County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clearfield County — 74th 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.
Warren County — 74th percentile — 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 Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Blair County — 74th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Tioga County — 73rd percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Carbon County — 73rd 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.
Westmoreland County — 72nd 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.
Lackawanna County — 71st percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Washington County — 70th 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.
Huntingdon County — 69th percentile — Above 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.
Pike County — 69th percentile — Above the median 2 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.
Venango County — 68th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (well above); near the median on Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Schuylkill County — 68th 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); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lycoming County — 66th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Union County — 66th percentile — Above the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Lancaster County — 64th percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Beaver County — 64th 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Luzerne County — 62nd percentile — Above the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation.
Elk County — 61st 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.
Near the median — 14 counties (40th–60th percentile)
Franklin County — 58th percentile — Near the median 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+.
Allegheny County — 57th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Social Isolation.
Columbia County — 57th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged 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 ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Wyoming County — 56th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (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.
Montour County — 54th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above), Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above) and Social Isolation (above); below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Northampton County — 53rd percentile — Near 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 Health, Disability & Isolation ‡; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Berks County — 52nd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
McKean County — 48th 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 Social Isolation; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Adams County — 47th percentile — Near the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Demographic Aging Pressure (above); near the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Housing & Transportation, 65+; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Clarion County — 46th percentile — Near the median 1 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.
Perry County — 46th percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Health, Disability & Isolation and Social Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+.
Philadelphia County — 43rd percentile — Near the median View by census tract →
Driven by Economic Precarity, 65+ (well above), Health, Disability & Isolation (above) and Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Social Isolation.
Dauphin County — 43rd 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.
Erie County — 41st 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 Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Below the median — 9 counties (20th–40th percentile)
York County — 39th percentile — Below the median View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (well above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure and Health, Disability & Isolation; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+ and Social Isolation.
Butler County — 37th percentile — Below the median 1 of 12 flagged View by census tract →
Driven by Housing & Transportation, 65+ (above); near the median on Demographic Aging Pressure; below the median on Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation ‡ and Social Isolation.
‡ theme includes at least one flagged input.
Monroe County — 32nd 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.
Greene County — 30th percentile — Below the median 2 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.
Cumberland County — 30th 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.
Delaware County — 30th 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.
Bucks County — 28th 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.
Lehigh County — 26th 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.
Centre County — 24th percentile — Below the median 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.
Well below the median — 2 counties (0th–20th percentile)
Montgomery County — 19th percentile — Well 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.
Chester County — 5th percentile — Well below the median View by census tract →
Below the median on Demographic Aging Pressure, Economic Precarity, 65+, Health, Disability & Isolation, Housing & Transportation, 65+ and Social Isolation.
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