(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Social statistics by census tracts in Boston"

i 






^ 



gN9. 



"^ 



?A€*^ 




BUSINESS BRANCH 



3^ 



-TH729': r;36. SftOCT" 



,' .^ 



■i m 



SOCIAL STATISTICS 

BY 
CENSUS TRACTS IN BOSTON 

A METHOD OF NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY 



BOSTON COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES 
BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND STUDIES 

43 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON 
APRIL, 1933 



. 



SOCIAL STATISTICS BY CENSUS TRACTS IN BOSTON 



A METHOD OF NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY 



Boston Council of Social Agencies 
Bureau of Research and Studies 
43 Tremont Street, Boston 
April, 1953 



Bb 



X 



FOREWORD 



The Boston Covincil of Social Agencies Issues this report, 
confident that the material which it contains will be valuable not only 
to those engsiged in social work, but to those in other fields of 
activity as well. In presenting it, the Council woxild have it clearly 
understood that it is offered as an outline of a method of study. It 
is in no sense a complete discussion of the statistical material now 
available, which can be developed in many different ways according to 
the peculiar interests of those who desire to make use of it. This 
report serves merely as a guide to this development. 

Credit for pioneering work with the census ti^ct project is 
due the Boston Health League, particularly Mr. Horace Morison of the 
Executive Committee and formerly Executive Secretary, and Miss Anna J. 
Haines who, as Executive Secretary, directed the preparation of the 
original tract map and street list Miss Margaret H. Tracy, the 
present Executive Secretary, has carried forward Miss Haines' work and 
collaborated with the Council in the preparation of specific material, 
particularly that relating to the health field. Dr. Francis X. 
Mahoney, Health Commissioner of Boston, early recognized the value of 
the plan with respect to health statistics and arranged for an appro- 
priation in his department budget which assured the recording of the 
federal census data by tracts. 

Our thanks are due to those organizations which have helped 
in the preparation of the material and in the supplying of data. We 
must mention especially the Emergency Planning and Research Bureau, 
which made for us all of the maps and charts and calciilated the area 
of inhabited land in the city as shown in Map II, the City Department 
of Public Welfare, the State Board of Probation, the City Department 
of Health, the Family Welfare Society, the Boston Provident Associa- 
tion, and the Jewish Family Welfare Association. 

This report has been prepared under the direction of Miss 
Mary A. Clapp, Director of the Bureau of Research and Studies, with 
the assistsince of Miss Alice Channing, Associate Director, and Miss 
Valentina Glebow. 




Executive Secretary. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 - Introduction 1 

2 - Source Material now Available in Boston 2 

United States Census 
Health Statistics 
Delinquency 
Relief 

5 - Census Tracts 5 

4 - Health and Welfare Areas 4 

5 - Population Trends - 1920-1930 5 

6 - Density of Population 6 

7 - Nationality and Race 7 

The Proportion of White Native and Foreign Bom Heads of Families 
Distribution of National Groups 
Citizenship of Foreign Bom Residents 

8 - Economic Status . ,_ 15 

Home Ownership 
Median Rentals 

9 - Housing 15 

Boarding and Lodging Houses 

10- Health 16 

Infant Mortality 
Tuberculosis 

11- Delinquency 19 

12- Relief 22 

Department of Public Welfare 
Private Agencies 

IS- Correlations 28 

14- Conclusions 30 



i\ 



Follovrlng 

MAPS ; page ; 

I - Population Trends, by Areas 5 

II - Use of Land, by Tracts 6 

III - Density, by Tracts 6 

IV - Foreign Bom Heads of Families, by Tracts 10 

V - Median Rentals by Tracts 14 

VI - Public Relief by Tracts 24 

CHARTS ; 

I - Native and Foreign Bom Heads of Families in Boston, by Health and 

Welfare Areas 8 

II - Foreign Bom Heads of Families in Boston by Country of Birth, by 

Health and Welfare Areas 10 

III - Citizenship of Foreign Bom 21 Years and Over in Boston, by Health 

and Welfare Areas 12 

rV - Home Ownership in Boston by Health and Welfare Areas - Proportion of 

Persons in Dwellings which they Own 15 

V - Infant Mortality in Boston 17 

VI - Tuberctilosis in Boston - New Cases - Deaths 18 

VII - Juvenile Delinquents - Delinquents 17 - 20 Years of Age 21 

VIII - Families in Health and Welfare Areas Receiving Relief from the 

Boston Department of Public Welfare 25 

TABLES ; Page ; 

1 - Density of Population 7 

2 - Number and Per cent of Foreign Bom Heads of Families (White) 8 

5 - Distribution of Negro Heads of Families in Boston 9 

4 - Proportion of Negro to Total Families 9 

5 - Four Most Numerous National Groups by Health and Welfare Areas 11 

6 - Citizenship of the Foreign Bom 21 Years of Age and Over by Health and 

Welfare Areas 12 

7 - Home Ownership by Areas 15 

8 - Median Monthly Rentals by Areas 14 

9 - Proportion of Population Living in Lodging Houses and Hotels by Areas — 15 

10- Per cent Distribution of Persons Living in Lodging Houses and Hotels 16 

11- Infant Mortality by Health and Welfare Areas 17 

12- Tuberculosis - New Cases per 100,000 Population 18 

15- Tuberculosis - Death Rates per 100,000 Population 19 

14- J uv e nl le Delinquents and Delinquents 17-20 Years of Age, by Health and 

Welfare Areas 21 

15- Number and Per cent of Families Receiving Relief from the Department of 

Public Welfare, by Health and Welfare Areas, November 1, 1952 - 

March 1, 1955 24 

16- Number and Per cent of Families Receiving Specified Types of Aid from 

the Department of Public Welfare, in Health and Welfare Areas - 

November 1, 1952 - March 1, 1955 25 

17- Distribution of Families Known to Relief Agencies, by Health and 

Welfare Areas 27 

18- Per cent of Families Known to Public and Private Agencies, by Health 

and Welfare Areas 27 

19- Rating Scale of Areas for Social and Health Factors 29 



INTRODUCTION 

The Onited States Census contains a wealth of Information about the 
people living In our cities. Other valuable facts lurk in the statistics of 
city and state departments. Social agencies have in their records the keys 
to many neighborhood and city -wide problems. 

Too often problems go vinrecognized because of the difficulty of 
excavating the facts, and, more especially, of finding a suitable device for 
bringing them together. In addition, statistical material in past Federal 
censuses is often not comparable because of the changes in ward lines in the 
intervening decades. 

Out of attempts to formulate a plan by which decennial census figures 
and other statistical material might be made comparable, the device of Census 
Tracts has developed. Onder this system, a city is divided into a number of 
geographical units. In some cities these units are of uniform acreage; in 
others they are made up of areas of which the population was of similar size 
at the time of their establishment. However they may be established, the 
principle involved is that of a fairly small district with fixed boundaries, which 
remains unchanged from one census to the next and irtiich obviates the diffictilty 
so often met in frequently changing ward lines. Thus, in any one census, the 
nTinber of persons living in a tract, their ages, sexes, nationalities, industry 
groups, citizenship or literacy, may be laid against like information of a past 
census, and trends and comparisons established. 

Similarly health, relief and delinquency trends may be established 
from year to year by a distribution by census tract of statistics from city and 
state departments. Thus many correlations may be made, especially as social 
agencies incorporate in their records the simple mechanism upon which recording 
by census tracts is based, and thus make more facts available. 



-2- 

SOURCE MATERIAL NOW AVAILABLE IN BOSTON 

I United States Census 

In some cities, federal census material has been available by census 

tracts since 1910 or 1920. Although population figures for Boston on this 

basis were available in 1920, it was not until 1930 that the following eleven 

tables hy census tracts were made available through the efforts of the Boston 

Health League and a generous grant of money from the City Health Department: 

Table I Population by Color, Nativity, Sex and Age. 

Table II Foreign Bom White Population by Country of Birth and Sex. 

Table III — Native White Population of Foreign or Mixed Parentage, by Country 

of Birth of Parents and by Sex. 

Table IV Population 21 years of age and over by Color, Nativity and Sex. 

Table V Foreign Born White Population 21 years of age and over by 

Citizenship and Sex. 
Table VI Population 10 years of age and over by Color, Nativity and 

Illiteracy 
Table VII — Population 15 years of age and over by Color, Nativity, Sex and 

Marital Condition. 
Table VIII-Galnful Workers 10 years of age and over by Industry Groups and Sex. 

Table JX Families by Color and Nativity of Head and by Size. 

Table X Homes by Tenure and Value of Monthly Rental. 

Table XI Families, Radios, Dwellings and Quasi-Family Groups. 

II Health Statistics 

Statistics relating to infant mortality, to tuberculosis, both as to 
new cases and to deaths, to diphtheria and scarlet fever*, for 1930 and 1931, 
have been gathered through the co-operative efforts of the Boston Health League 
and the Boston Coimcil of Social Agencies, from the records of the City Health 
Department. In 1952 the Health Department instituted a record system based on 
census tracts, so that information in the futiire will automatically come from that 
source . 

III Delinquency . 

In October, 1950, the Massachusetts Board of Probation instituted 



♦ Because of the limitations of space and because it was felt that they were not of 
equal social significance, figures for diphtheria and scarlet fever are omitted from 
the discussion. They are available at the office of the Boston Health League. 



-5- 

a very complete system of statistical recording. At the present time there are 
available for study two sets of figures by Census Tracts,- those for Juvenile 
Delinquents (children 7-16 years of age), emd Delinquents 17-20 years of age, 
for two years, October, 1930 to October, 1951, and October, 1951 to October, 1952. 

IV Relief 

Up to the present time, relief figures on the basis of Census Tracts 
have not been available. The total case loads and the expenditures of the 
Department of Public Welfare and of the various private relief-giving societies 
have been a matter of record for years; but it has not been possible to analyse 
the figures by comparable districts. Now, however, throiigh the co-operation of 
the Department of Public Welfare, and of the Family Welfare Society, the Boston 
Provident Association and the Jewish Family Welfare Association, figures by 
census tracts are available. Unlike the material for health and delinquency, 
these are figures collected not under a permanently continuing system, but for 
limited periods. 

1. Department of P ublic Welfare . Families receiving relief between 
the first of November, 1932, and the first ol" March, 1933. 

2. JChree Private Societies . Families receiving relief and service 
in October, 1932. 

CENSUS TRACTS 

A census tract has already been defined as a fixed geographical unit, 

which makes possible the collection and comparison of different sets of statistics 

for small areas. The allotment of individual cases into their appropriate 

tracts is easily done by means of a street index* in which every street is listed 

and assigned to the tract or tracts through which it runs, by the number of the 

tract or tracts. 

♦"Alphabet Street Index and Basic Demographic Data for the City of Boston by 
Census Tracts." 



-4- 



Under the present scheme, there are in Boston 128* separate census 
tracts. These tracts vary greatly both in size and in population. The smallest 
is one of 7.8 acres - census tract G-4 in the South End; the largest is one 
of 2956.6 acres - census tract W-6 in West Roxiury. Population figures show 
equal diversities - from G-5 in the South End, with its 441 inhabitants, to 
Y-5 in Brighton, which has a population of 18,889. However, the point 
already made, that the establishment of a basis of comparison is the all 
important factor, makes these differences of size and population relatively 
unimportant. There is always the possibility of sub-dividing large tracts and 
combining small ones provided only that original outlines be not distiirbed. 

HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 
In addition to individtial tracts, it has been felt necessary to define 
a number of larger geographical units, composed of groups of tracts, as a further 
basis for study. In the first place, the city falls into a niunber of commonly 
accepted neighborhoods or districts. In the .secwid place, the larger figiires 
made possible by combining those for several tracts, are of greater statistical 
validity, and obviate the wider fluctuations created by the use of smaller 
nvimbers. Then, too, many social agencies in Boston operate on a district plan 
under which they have a central headquarters, and sub-offices in various 
neighborhoods. Typical of this sort of agency, are the Family Welfare Society 
and the Community Health Association. In many instances, however, their 
district lines fail to coincide. Accordingly, what one agency means by "Roxbury" 
is not at all what another may mean by it. In order that definitely defined 
districts might be established, a group of member agencies of the Council of 
Social Agencies last year held several conferences, as a result of which the 

*One tract - B-6, is omitted from these calculations- It is that which in- 
cludes all the harbor islands, and has no bearing on neighborhood problems. 



-5- 

clty was divided into fovirteen Health and Welfare areas. The City Health 
Department has already officially adopted this plan. In deciding upon these 
areas, which must follow tract outlines as well, the factors of historical 
district boundaries, population, and transportation facilities were considered. 
It is obvious that many agencies, in the actual pursuance of their district 
work, may not find it jxjssible to conform to the boundaries of these Health and 
Welfare Areas, especially since tract outlines do not always coincide with 
generally accepted district boundaries. For example, the South End is 
generally conceded to run to Massachusetts Avenue; whereas the nearest tract 
outlines follow a tortuous trail along Northampton Street, Harrison Avenue, 
East Lenox and Fellows Streets . For the present, emphasis is laid upon the 
importance of statistical recording of data significant to social planning, 
by these Health and Welfare Areas, rather than upon the need for uniform 
operating districts. 

POPULATION TRENDS - 1920-1950 
The population of Boston increased 4.1 per cent between 1920 and 
1950. Seven areas - those clustered in the center of the city - decreased 
in population in the ten years in varying degrees, from the Back Bay area which 
changed very little, to the West End in which the population in 1950 was almost 
30 per cent less than it was in 1920. The seven outlying areas showed in- 
creases, ranging from Roxbury, in wtiich the population remained practically 
stationary, to West Roxbury which increased over 50 per cent. (Map I.) 
Individual census tracts fluctuated far more than did the areas. For example, 
census tract F-5 in the North End Area showed the largest increase in the 
decade - 147.8 per cent - in spite of the fact that the Health and Welfare area 
in which it is located decreased 12 per cent. The highest percentage of 
decrease was 75 per cent in G-5, a tract in the South End Area. 



-6- 



DEMSITT OF POPULATION 

Density of population for a given area is calculated by dividing the 
number of people inhabiting it by the size of the area. Unless the number of 
acres actually lived in is known, however, results may be misleading. In many 
instances, most of the land is not available for living purposes (see Map II. )» 
with the result that a tract which, because of its small population and large 
acreage, may appear to be rather sparsely populated, is in reality very 
densely populated, once the acreage devoted to purposes other than living is 
eliminated. Tract G-1, in the South End, is a case in point. Its popula- 
tion was 2204, its acreage 300.5. Its uncorrected density was 7.5 persons 
per acre. Study of Map II - the Use of Land in Boston - however, reveals 
that the Common occupies one comer of it, the South Station emd its yards 
auiother, while the great down-town business district extends throughout its 
center. As a matter of fact, only 4.7 acres of the total 300.5 are at the 
present time inhabited. Accordingly its corrected density became 490.8 
persons per acre, thus making it the eleventh tract in order of density. 

The density of population by census tracts is shown in Map III, and by 
Health and Welfare Areas in Table 1. 

The corrected densities of individual tracts were often far greater 
than those of the Health and Welfare areas. For example, in the North End, 
F-5 had a density of 1420 persons per acre, and F-2 a density of 1008.7 




c 

Co 



I! n 

s >■ 
°S'»' — 

S 

D5 



O 



f 



P O '^ 35 z 



ii 


n 

J 






n: 


(;^ 


P s 


03 


^ 
ZT 




? 






* > 

5 n 







S > 



go 

O xi 



5 -^ 



^ ^ m m 

o LJ Liiij t»! 



-7- 



TABLE 1. DENSITY OF POPULATION. 







Number of Acres 


Number of Persons 


Health and 




Available 


per 


Welfare Area 


Population 


for Habitation 


Inhabited Acre 



Boston 778.976 

North End 27,818 

West Old 28,028 

South End 60,506 

Charlestown 51,665 

South Boston 59,728 

East Boston 59,242 

Back Bay 58,887 

Roxbury 105,790 

Dorchester North 120,055 

Brighton 56,562 

Dorchester South 74,445 

Jamaica Plain 44,542 

West Roxbury 47,414 

Hyde Park 24,498 



6.944.9 



54.8 
84.0 
187.9 
125.8 
279.7 
294.9 
255.4 
730.0 

1,105.2 
712.4 
955.0 
648.5 

1,016.5 
559.0 



112.2 

799.4 

533.7 

522.1 

255.8 

213.5 

200.9 

167.2 

144.9 

108.6 

79.1 

78.0 

68.7 

46.6 

45.4 



NATIONALITY AND RACE 
Three aspects of nationality are herewith analysed,- the proportion 
of foreign and native bom heads of families, the distribution of national and 
racial groups throughout the city, and the degree to which foreign bom 
residents have assumed citizenship. As a basis for this analysis, because of 
its greater social significance, the table (Federal Census Table 9) * which 
gives the birthplace and race of the head of the family, rather than that 
(Federal Census Table 2) which gives the same facts for individuals, is 
used .** 



* "Census Tract Data, 1950 Census", on file at the office of the Council of 
Social Agencies. 

»* " the percentage of the families classified as foreign-born white is 
likely to be much larger than the percentage of the population classi- 
fied as foreign bom white". Population Bulletin, Families. U S. 
Census, 1950. p. 6 



-8- 

The Proportion of White Native and Foreign Born Heads of Families . 

In seven of the foiirteen Health and Welfare Areas, even in 1930, 
in spite of the immigration restrictions since the world war, more than half the 
heads of families were foreign bom (See Cheirt I, and Table 2.) This, of 
course, is an outstanding point of interest in respect to the ethnic factors 
in the population of the city. 

TABLE 2. NUMBER AND PER CENT OF FOREIGN BORN HEADS OF FAMILIES (WHITE) 



Health and Total Number 
Welfare Area of Families 

Boston 179.189 

Back Bay 11,561 

Brighton 15,814 

Charlestown 6,691 

Dorchester North 27,941 

Dorchester South 16,847 

East Boston 12,581 

Hyde Park 5,540 

Jamaica Plain 11,008 

North End 4,649 

RoxbTiry 25,492 

South Boston 15,255 

South End 10,562 

West End 6,194 

West Roxbury 11,074 



Foreign Bom Families 



Number 


Per cent 


89.162 


49.8 


5,009 


26.0 


5,655 


55.8 


5,004 


44.9 


14,787 


52.9 


9,350 


55.5 


8,659 


68.7 


2,610 


47.1 


4,753 


45.0 


4,065 


87.4 


12,255 


48.0 


7,565 


55.6 


5,576 


50.8 


5,870 


62.5 


4,468 


40.5 



Chart I also shows concentration of Negro Population in the South 
End and in the Roxbury areas, for residing in these two districts are to be 
found almost nine-tenths (87.1 per cent) of all the Negroes in Boston. 
Since negroes present particular problems, especially in matters pertaining 
to health, attention should be given to those districts in which they 
congregate. 



♦For definition of "Family", see Population Bvilletin, Families. U. S. 
Census, 1950. p. 5. 



NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN HEADS of FAMILIES 

IN BOSTON 
BY HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 



FKOM UNITED STATES CEN3U3 i930 



I ' » IP »0 SO 



BOSTON 

BACK BAY 
BRIGHTON 
CHARLESTOWN 
DORCHESTER NO. 
DORCHESTER SO. 
BAST BOSTON 
HYDE PARK 
JAMAICA PLAIN 
NORTH END 
ROXBURY 
50UTH BOSTON 
50UTH END 
WE5T END 
WEST ROXBURY 



SO 60 70 eo 



90 |oo% 



PERCENT ^CALE ""|mm | mm|mm | 1, rr, nu, | m n , m 1 1 1 1 1 1 i , 1 1 i r i l u i , , m r i ' ^nxpni 




annBini]! 



AyyyyyA 




DID ^ 



NATIVE BORN NATIVE BORN FOREIGN BORN NEGROES OTHER RACES 

NATIVE PARENTS FOREIGN PARENT5 

(WMITt) (WHITEJ (WUITt) 

PREPARED FOR 

BOSTON COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES 

BY THE EMERGENCY PLANMING d RESEARCH BUREAU INC BOSTON.MASi - 1933 



CHAKT N" X 



-9- 



TABLE S. DISTRIBOTION OF NEGRO HEADS OF FAMILIES IN BOSTON. 



Health and Per cent 

Welfare Area Number Distribution 

Boston 5,539 ' 100.0 

Roxbury 5,504 65.6 

South End 1,546 25.2 

All Others 489 9.2 



The relationship of the negro population to total population 
appears in the following table: 

TABLE 4. PROPORTION OF NEGRO TO TOTAL FAMILIES. 



Health and Total Number Negro Families 
Welfare Area of Families Number Per cent 

Boston 179.189 5.559 5.0 

Roxbury 25,492 5,504 15.7 

South End 10,562 1,546 12.7 

All Others 145,155 489 .5 



Negro population was especially concentrated in four census tracts 
in the Roxbury area,- R-1 with 8.1 per cent, R-2 with 51.4 per cent, R-5 with 
55.5 per cent emd D-5 with 22.9 per cent; and in three in the South End area,- 
L-2 with 57.9 per cent, L-5 with 59.1 per cent and J-2 with 42.2 per cent. 

Chart I also shows a concentration of 'Other Races" - xmdoubtedly the 
Chinese - in the South End eirea. In two tracts in this area - G-1 sind 
G-2 - "Other Races" were 40.2 per cent eind 15.6 per cent respectively of the 
total population. 



-10- 



Map IV illustrates the distribution of foreign born heads of families 
by census tracts. The proportion in certain tracts was very high. For 
example, in F-1, in the North End area, 92.2 per cent of all heads of families 
were foreign bom. 

Distribution of National Groups . 

Chart II (based on Table 5) portrays the national complexion of each 
area by ranking in each the four most numerous national groups. Native born 
persons, whether of native born or foreign bom parents, are not included in 
the following calculations. 

Persons bom in the Irish Free State comprised the largest group 
of the foreign bom in Boston. They were widely distributed throughout the 
whole city, and constituted one of the four most numerous national groups in 
twelve of the fourteen areas. 

On the other hand, those bom in Italy, while nearly as large a 
group, appeared in fewer areas - nine of the fourteen - and showed great 
concentration in the North End and in East Boston. 

The third numerically important group - persons bom in Canada - 
like the Irish, were scattered throxjghout the whole city, and were one of the 
four ranking groups in twelve of the fourteen areas. 

Those bom in Russia - the fourth Isirgest group - like those from 
Italy, were found on this basis in six of the fourteen areas, but were 
especially concentrated in the West End and in Dorchester South. The Federal 
Census at no place makes any accounting of the Jewish group, because no 
classification is made by religious faith. This Russian group is of impor- 
tamce because it is undoxjbtedly largely composed of those of the Jewish 
faith. 



I 

H 



5 a 
s s 



i Xt ^ 

06 M M 



5 5 
3 3 



S $ 



^ a 



5 a 

3 3 







3 




3 


3 






a 


3 




3 


3 






CO 




CO 


to 






3 














•H 














PQ 


£ 




£ 


£ 




5 


+> 


£ 


«j 


^ 


A 


•S 














3 




^ 
(. 


s 


•ri 

u 


•H 


3 



9 9 



m 






3 



^ 



3 

3 



3 



^ 



S S 



5 
3 



3 



3 






k 






fi 










£ 






£ 










<A 







A 






















A 


•o 


T) 


fi 




^ 


^ 


■g 


^ 


o 


■y 




n 


■•i 


u 

M 


s 


O 




ID 


OQ 


3 


5 

t-t 




3 




U 
M 


S 

o 


1 


9 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


^ 


8 


8 


8 


s 


s 


8 


o 
o 


S 


8 


s 


g 


8 


g 


g 


"^ 


r-A 










fi 


•H 








H 




■^ 


^ 






U) 






S3 

IQ 


o» 




to 


»o 


\n 


to 


to 


„ 


03 


s 


« 


lO 


S 


s 






t^ 


« 


N 


(O 


IQ 


00 


« 




































m 


■a 


■^ 


Ol 


oo 


CM 


^ 


-^r 


w 


t- 




lO 


•* 


CO 








iH 























5 
3 



3 5 



3 



a .3 £> 



5 

a 



3 



FOR.EIGN BORN ULAD5 or FAMILIES m B05T0N 

BY COUNTRY or 5IRTH 
DT HEALTH (5 WELFARE AREA5 

DAT* - FRO" UMTCO STATE5 CEMSUS t930 

b 3 to Zo 30 40 SO 60 JO SO qo lop?^ 

PEIRCEMTAGE 5CALE I ' ^ ^ M ' ' ' ' I ' ' ^ M ' ' ' ' 1 ' ' ^ N ' ' ■ ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 ' ' U ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' -m-l " ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * " 



bO^TON 



bACK BAY 



BRIGHTON 



CUAR.LE5TOWN 



DORCHESTER MO- 



DORCHESTER SO- 



EAST BOSTON 



HYDE PAR.K 



JAMAICA PLAIW 



NORTH END 



EOX&UBY 



50UTH BO5T0M 



50UTH EMD 



WE^T EhJD 



WE5T KOXBURy 



SSH 




^sz^m^^^m 



i^^i^i^J^^ftWlWlWj^^iM 



r^^i^^j^csss 



".'VV'.''.'. ■.;.■.'.;'.■ vvv_v^_ 




::::::::::'2^^^^ 



:^J^::::!^ 



5^^^^^.^^^^N::::::::::: 



MJ^^^^i^^J^^^ 



^ 







^W^^ 



^^^^^^ 








^ 



IRISH FREEHATE ITALY 



I 



LITHUAUIA 



POLAND 



GREAT braiTAiN S-MOIMUMD CAWADA 

rw — »» — w- w- 



EUS51A 



<//^///, 

:,//,//,/. 



GRtECt GERMANY 5YR.IA 



ALL OTHERS 



PREPAEiD FOR. 

BOSTON COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES 

BY EMERGENCY PLANWHG JSP RESEARCH BURIAU - IKIC-1<133 CHART Wo H 



1> 



-12- 



There are certain national groups, not sufficiently numerous to appear 
in Table 5, which nevertheless were concentrated in one or two tracts. The 
Syrian population offers a good example of this fact. There were in Boston 969 
heads of families bom in Syria, of iriiom 544 or 55.5 per cent of the total number, 
lived in tracts G-1 and G-2 in the South End. In Q-1 the group comprised 85.6 
per cent, and in G-2, 55.9 per cent of the total foreign bom heads of families 
in the tract. In six contiguous tracts of this same area there were 658 heads 
of families bom in Syria - 65.8 per cent of all in Boston. 

Citizenship of Foreign Bom Residents 

The degree to irtiich the foreign born have assumed United States 
Citizenship by tracts is shown in Chart III. Table 6 ranks the areas according 
to the percentage of foreign bom citizens in each who have become naturalized, 
who have taken out their first papers, or irtio are aliens. 

TABLE 6 . CITIZENSHIP OF THE FOREIGN BORN 21 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER BY HEALTH 
AND WELFARE AREAS. 



Total Foreign 
Born with Known 
Health and 
Welfare Area 

Boston 

Jamaica Plain 

West Roxbury 

Charles town 

Brighton 

Dorchester North 
Dorchester South 

Roxbury 

Hyde Park 

Back Bay 

South Boston 

South End 

East Boston 

West End 

North End 



Citizenship 


Naturalized 


First Papers 


Aliens 


Nunber 


Percent 


Number Percent 


Number Percent 


Number Percent 


207.510 


100.0 


115.142 


54.5 


22.084 


10.6 


72,284 


54.8 


10,526 


100.0 


6,917 


66.9 


1,058 


10.1 


2,571 


25.0 


10,765 


100.0 


7,027 


65.2 


966 


9.0 


2,772 


25.8 


6,867 


100.0 


4,524 


65.0 


765 


11.2 


1,778 


25.8 


12,225 


100.0 


7,561 


61.8 


1,178 


9.6 


5,485 


28.5 


51,687 


100.0 


19,496 


61.5 


5,129 


9.9 


9,062 


28.6 


21,422 


100.0 


15,055 


60.9 


1,977 


9.2 


6,410 


29.9 


27,517 


100.0 


16,598 


60.0 


2,757 


10.0 


8,182 


50.0 


5,720 


100.0 


5,107 


54.5 


588 


10.5 


2,025 


55.4 


9,606 


100.0 


4,719 


49.2 


1,271 


15.2 


5,616 


57.6 


16,108 


100.0 


7,896 


49.0 


2,056 


12.8 


6,156 


58.2 


18,487 


100.0 


8,454 


45.2 


2,282 


12.4 


7,751 


42.4 


18,110 


100.0 


7,551 


41.6 


1,915 


10.5 


8,666 


47.9 


9,527 


100.0 


5,794 


59.8 


1,255 


15.2 


4,480 


47.0 


9,545 


100.0 


2,885 


50.9 


951 


10.0 


5,529 


59.1 



ClTIZ[N5HIPof rOI^LIGN 50RN'21 Y[AR5andOVEI^ 

IN BOSTON 

5Y HEALTh AND WtLfA^L AR[A5 

DATA - fROM UNlTtO 3TATt5 CtN3U3 1930 



PERCENTAQt SCALt f 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 j°l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '|° 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l^p 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 *^^ | , 1 1 1 1 1 i^ 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 *-" 1 1 1 | m i i ^n 1 1 1 1 1 1 i^^ l ^ 1 1 1 1 1 m^m ii 1 1 1 " 



D05T0N 

SACK. DAY 
5RIGHTON 
CMARLE5T0WN 
DOHCHLSTtR NS- 
D0R.CHt5TER 52 
EA5T BOSTON 
HYDE PAI^K 
JAMAICA PLAIN 
NORTH END 
R0X5URY 
50UTH 505T0N 
50UTH LND 
WEST END 
WE5T ROXBURY 




NATURALIZED 



FIRST PAPERS 



ALItN5 



PREPARED rOR. 

505TON COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES 

er THt. LMCRSCNCV PLAMNIMO i^ IttSCARCH buniAU iNC BoapM MA^S - ISOS 



CHAET N«Iir 



-15- 

ECONOMIC STATUS 
The Federal Census, in the information which it contains about home 
ownership, the values of these homes, and the amounts of rent paid, offers 
valuable clues to the economic levels of different neighborhoods. Median 
values or median rentals for a given tract may be considered as rough but 
significant gauges of the general economic status of families in the district. 
While the figures used in this report are based on facts collected in 1930 
and while conditions concerning rents and values have undoubtedly changed in 
the interim, the differences in the economic levels of the tracts is still 
significant. 

Home Ownership 

Home ownership is one means by which the economic level of a 
neighborhood is tested, for it is commonly supposed that a district in which a 
great many people own their homes is of a different calibre from one in which the 
great proportion of people pay rent. The percentage of homes owned in the health 
eu:eas ranged from 52.7 per cent in West Roxbury to 4 per cent in the West End. 

TABLE 7. HOME OWNERSHIP BY AREAS. 



Health and 


Total Homes with 
Known Tenures 


Homes Owned 


Homes Rented 


Welfare Area 


Number Percent 


Number Percent 


Number Percent 



Boston 176.168 100.0 

West Roxbviry 10,913 100.0 

Hyde Park 5,496 100.0 

Dorchester South — 16,677 100.0 

Jamaica Plain 10,811 lOO.O 

East Boston 12,411 100.0 

Dorchester North — 27,571 lOO.O 

South Boston 13,097 100.0 

Charlestown 6,548 100.0 

Brighton 15,594 100.0 

Roxbury ■— 25,068 100.0 

South End 10,124 100.0 

West End 6,001 100.0 

Back Bay 11,501 100,0 

North End 4.576 100.0 



46.014 26.1 



5,754 
2,578 
5,829 
3,700 
3,571 
7,711 
3,527 
1,724 
3,336 
4,452 
1,636 

739 
1,131 

326 



52.7 
46.9 
35.0 
34.2 
28.8 
28.0 
26.9 
26.3 
21.3 
17.8 
16.1 
12.3 
10.1 
7.1 



130.174 73.9 



5,159 
2,918 

10,848 
7,111 
8,840 

19,860 
9,570 
4,824 

12,258 

20,616 
8,488 
5,262 

10.170 
4.250 



47.3 
53.1 
65.0 
65.8 
71 2 
72.0 
73.1 
73.7 
78.7 
82.2 
83.9 
87.7 
89.9 
92.9 



HOML OWNERSHIP IN BOSTON 
5Y HEALTH ($ WELfARL AREAS 

PEOPOETION or PEESONS IN 
DWLLLING-5 WHICH THEY OWN 

DATA - FROM UNITED STATej CENSUS 1930 

PERCENT 5CALE. I ' ' ' ' I n n M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ffl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m 1 1 1 1 m^ i " i n 1 1 1 1 S^ rj rrTg 



505TON 



WEST EOX&UB.V 



SOUTH LND 
WEST END 

5ACI^ &AY 
NOieTH END 




HOMLS OWNLD 

PUCPABtD '■oe. 

b05T0N COUNCIL Of SOCIAL AGLNCILS 

&Y THE EMERGENCY PLANNING 4 EESEAeCM &UB.LAU INC. 505TON MA5e)-l933 



CMAR.T NO 21 



-14- 



Median Rentals 

In this discussion the item of rent rather than that of assessed valua- 
tion,* is used to determine economic status, as it probably gives a truer pictvire 
of the actual living conditions in the area. In the North End, for example, 
real estate is valuable, and assessed values are high. Rents, however, are low 
because people crowd into tenements. Since 73.9 per cent of the people in 
Boston pay rent, the median rent is a sound basis for calculation. 

TABLE 8. MEDIAN MONTHLI RENTALS BY AREAS. 

Health and Median 
Welfare Area Monthly Rental 

Boston IS6.70 

Charlestown 21.70 

North End 24.10 

South Boston 24.16 

East Boston 25.51 

South End 27.59 

West End 28.95 

Roxbury 55,55 

Hyde Park 55.87 

Dorchester North 59.79 

Jamaica Plain 40.94 

Dorchester South 42.25 

West Roxbury 45.98 

Brighton 52.92 

Back Bay 54.60 

Median monthly rentals for each tract are shown in Map V. In almost 

half of the tracts, the median rentals were less than $50 per month, and in almost 

three-quarters, less than $40 per month. With the exception of three tracts where 

rentals were high (K-3 and K-5 in the Back Bay and K-2 in the West End) and of ten 

irtiere they were less than $20 per month (C-1 and D-1 in Charlestown, S-2 in 

Roxbury, M-1, M_2. M-5, M-4 and 0-4 in South Boston, and G-4 and Q-1 in the South 

End) , in almost nine-tenths of the tracts the median rents ranged from $20 to 

$50 per month. 

♦Complete tabulations of assessed valuations are on file at the Council office. 



-15- 

If excessively low rents indicate bad housing with its attendant 
effects upon living and health conditions in general, then those particular 
districts where they exist become of immediate interest. 



HOUSING 
Boarding and Lodging Houses 

The presence of large numbers of lodging houses and hotels Influences 
the character of a neighborhood. Whereas less than 5 per cent of the total 
population of Boston was so lodged > there were certain areas in i^ic?i this 
proportion was very much higher. Almost 20 per cent of every one living in the 
South End, for example, resided in one or the other of these two kinds of domi- 
ciles. In one tract - 1-5 - of the area, 51.4 per cent of the inhabitants 
lived in lodging houses. 
TABLE 9. PROPORTION OF POPULATION LIVING IN LODGING HOUSES AND HOTELS BT AREAS. 



Health and 
Welfare Area 



Popiilation 



Per cent of Population 
Living in Lodging Houses and Hotels 

In Lodging 
In Both Houses In Hotels 



Boston 

South End 

Back Bay 

West End 

North End 

All Others — 



778.976 

60,506 
58,887 
28,028 
27,818 
625.757 



2.5 

18.5 

9.2 

7.4 

5.9 

.5 



1.8 

14.2 

4.8 

5.8 

2.7 

.5 



_^ 

4.1 

4.4 
1.6 

5.2 



Seventy-five and three tenths per cent of that portion of the popu- 
lation of Boston living in hotels and lodgings was concentrated in two of the 
Health and Welfare Areas,- the South End and the Back Bay. These two with 
the West End and North End areas, contained over 95 per cent of the city's 
hotel and lodging house dwellers. Table 10 gives the distribution in these 
areas, and shows that 56.8 per cent of the persons living in lodging houses and 
hotels in Boston live in the South End. 



-16- 



TABLE 10. PER CEOT DISTRIBUTION OF PERSONS LIVING IN LODGING HOUSES AND HOTELS. 



Persona Living In Lodging Houses and Hotels 

Total In Lodging Houses In Hotels 

Health and Per cent Per cent Per cent 

Welfare Area Niimber Distribution Nxinfcer Distribution Number Distribution 

Boston 19.552 100.0 13.995 100.0 5.559 100.0 

South End 11,112 56.8 8,6.50 61.8 2,462 44.2 

Back Bay 3,620 18.5 1,890 13.5 1,730 31.1 

West End 2,090 10.7 1,634 11.6 456 8.2 

North End 1,637 8.4 743 5.4 894 16.1 

All Others 1,093 5.6 1,076 7.7 17 .4 



HEALTH 

Mention has already been made of the fact that health statistics covering 
Infant Mortality, Tuberculosis, Diphtheria and Scarlet Fever, based upon the 
records of the City Health Department, and prepared by the Boston Health League, 
are available by Health and Welfare Areas and by Census Tracts for the years 1930 
and 1931. 

As these statistics are studied, two facts must be borne in mind: 

1. In many instances, especially in the case of figures which deal with 
births and infant deaths, the numbers for individual tracts are often 
small. Accordingly fluctuations in rates are disproportionately great. 

2. These figures cover the span of two years, a period too short for 
the building up of statistical evidence of great social significance. 

It Is only when small numbers follow a consistent trend over a long period of 
time that they become of real significance. High morbidity rates in any given area 
therefore should be considered as danger signals indicating the need of careful case 
study of conditions affecting the area rather than as absolute factual evidence. 



-17- 



Infant Mortality 

The infant mortality rate for Boston in 1931 was 59.4 per 1,000 
live births,- the lowest rate on record. In the previous year - 1930 - it 
was 66 .6 In this two-year period, rates in eleven of the fourteen areas 
decreased in varying degrees. The rates in three areas,- Back Bay, Charlestown 
and Hyde Park,- increased in 1931. In both years, the Hyde Park area had a 
rate below the general rate for the city. The rate in the Back Bay equalled 
that of the city in 1930, and was greater in 1931. Charlestown' s rate in both 
years was decidedly above that of the city, and increased markedly in 1931. 
In contrast, the West End, a district which compares in many other respects 
with Charlestown, had the best record for infant mortality of all the areas, 
having the next to the lowest rate in 1930 and the lowest in 1931. (Chart V.) 

TABLE 11. EJFMT MORTALITY BY HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS. 

iths 

?ar 

L951 

Boston 13.892 12.975 926 772 66.6 59.4 

Back Bay 329 337 22 27 66.8 80.1 

Brighton 1,045 944 59 48 56.4 50.8 

Charlestown 543 454 45 52 82.8 114.5 

Dorchester North 2,206 2,049 15S 107 69.3 52.2 

Dorchester South 1,274 1,267 69 61 54.1 48.1 

East Boston 1,310 1,228 105 86 78.6 70.0 

Hyde Park 454 436 17 24 37.4 55.0 

Jamaica Plain — 837 732 59 52 46.5 43.7 

North End 495 461 40 57 .80.8 80.2 

Roxbury 2,160 1,975 140 118 64.8 59.7 

South Boston 1,176 1,086 105 76 89.2 69.9 

South End 857 797 76 58 88.6 72.7 

West End 408 440 19 13 46.5 29.5 

Wes t Roxbury 798 769 39 33 48.8 42.9 

♦The Boston Health League co-operating with the Harvard Oniversity School of Public 
Health, the City Health Department, and the Bureau of Research and Studies of the 
Boston Council of Social Agencies, is sponsoring a study which involves a medical 
and social investigation of infant deaths occiirring in these two areas, in the 
first six months of 1935. 



Health and 


Number of Births 
1930 1951 


Number of 
Infant Deaths 
Under 1 Year 


Rate per 1000 Births 


Welfare Area 


1930 1931 


1950 1931 




z 



o 



o 



> 



lU 

d 

lU 



o 
o 
o 



> 

"> a 



z 



< 



d 









z a 

■u ^ 1 

< 

Oil- 

a 



3>; 



Sg 



o 



X 
to 

H fe 
to ^ 

On 



^mm^m^ 




NODTti- END 



50UTrt £ND 



EAST BOSTON 



|50UTMD05T0N 



DOXBUDY 



DODILSTEBNOBTft 



CCtlTON 



D0BCttt5Tm50UTtt 



MAICA PUIN 



WEST DOXBUBY 



W£5T END 




BOSTON 



^^ 



'I'i'i'i 



'I'Ml'l' 



I'I'I'I 




HYDt RACK 



BACK E3AY 



CI1ADLE5T0WN 



CHACT N0 3Z: 



-18- 



Tuberculosls 

Two sets of rates concerning tuberculosis are available,- that for new 
cases and that for deaths. (Chart VI.) 

The rate for cases of Tuberculosis decreased In 1951, falling to 148.0 
from 170.0 in 1950. Rates in twelve of the fourteen areas showed a similar trend. 
The rates in two areas only,- the North End and East Boston,- increased in 1951. 

TABLE 12. TUBERCULOSIS - NEW CASES PER 100,000 POPULATION. 



Health and Total 

Welfare Area Population 

Boston 778.976 

Back Bay 58,887 

Brighton 56,562 

Charlestown 51,665 

Dorchester North 120,055 

Dorchester South 74.445 

East Boston 59,242 

Hyde Park 24,498 

Jamaica Plain 44,542 

North End 27,818 

Roxbury 105,790 

South Boston 59,728 

Soutii End 60,506 

West End 28,028 

West Roxbury 47,414 



Although the rate for new cases for the city was smaller in 1951 than it 
iras in 1950, the rate for deaths from tuberculosis increased from 57.0 per 100,000 
population in 1950, to 65.0 in 1951. Four areas - Dorchester North, Hyde Park, 
and South and West Ends - showed improved rates for the two-year period. Of these 
four, three had rates for 1951 lower than that for the city as a whole; but the 
rate for the South End was more than twice as large as the rate for the city. 

The South End area, as Tables 12 and 15 reveal, has excessively high 



Number of 


New Gases 


Rate per 


100,000 


1950 


1951 


1950 


1931 


1,524 


1,155 


170.0 


148.0 


68 


45 


174.8 


110.5 


65 


52 


115.3 


92.2 


62 


59 


195.8 


186.5 


168 


151 


159.9 


109.1 


75 


75 


100.7 


100.7 


81 


94 


136.7 


158.7 


51 


28 


126.5 


114.3 


57 


42 


127.9 


94.2 


40 


48 


143.7 


172.5 


192 


176 


181.4 


166.3 


120 


93 


201.0 


156.0 


240 


214 


596.7 


353.6 


55 


41 


189.0 


146.0 


72 


59 


151.8 


124.4 



o 
o 
o 
6 
o 




§ " I 

9 j: 5 



z 



Z 2 

a o 

i— ' 



to 

ILJ 



r 



o 

IL- 






d 
z 

22 

o i: 

< Ss 

lO "^ g 
o — g 

u 3 2 

Zap 

858 



z o 

O q 
1- ^ 



•q 




^^^^:^;^.»;^^;^;»_; ^ 



SOUTtt tND 
tmiiLtSTOWN 



^ 



^^^^ 



^^^^^^ 




^^^^^^^ 



^W^^ 



^^^^^^ 



! 





DOXbUCY 



50UTtt BOSTON 



WE^T END 



/L5T DOXDUDY 



ttYDt PABK 



&ACRDAY 



DOIOOIBNOCm 



DoiiaiC3rER5oum 



JAMAICA PLAIN 



BEOTTON 



E)05TOH 



\>\>\>\>\,\ 



^^^^^^^ 



I 



.^^^^^t^t^ 



CAST BOSTON 
NODTtt END 

I 

CHAET No3r 



-19- 



tiiberculosls rates. Both for new cases and for deaths, these rates were the 
highest of any area in the city. 

TABLE 13. TUBERCULOSIS - DEATH RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION. 



1951 



Niimber of Deaths 
Health and from Tuberculosis 
Welfare Area 1950 

Boston 448 

Back Bay 10 

Brighton 16 

Charlestown 23 

Dorchester North 55 

Dorchester South 18 

East Boston 25 

Hyde Park 10 

Jamaica Plain 26 

North End 16 

Roxbury 70 

South Boston 52 

South End 94 

West End 17 

West Roxbury 18 



Death Rate 
per 100.000 



1930 



1931 



505 

19 

25 
25 
49 
57 
56 
7 
26 
19 
77 
58 
88 
15 
28 



57.0 

25.7 

28.3 
72.6 
45.8 
24.1 
58.8 
48.8 
58.5 
57.5 
66.1 
87.0 
155.4 
60.6 
57.9 



65.0 

48.8 
40.8 
72.6 
40.8 
49.7 
60.7 
26.5 
58.5 
68.5 
72.7 
97.1 
145.4 
55.5 
59.0 



DELINQUENCY 
Statistics for delinquency for two age groups - children from 7-16 
years of age, and minors from 17-20 years of age - have been gathered and made 
available by the Massachusetts Board of Probation, for the two years from 
October, 1950, to October, 1952. These young delinquents have been dis- 
tributed, not according to the court in which they were dealt with but according 
to their residence. If a child is charged with several offenses at the same 
time, he is counted only once in these statistics. If, however, he appears 
in court more than once in the same year, he is tallied for each ap^^earance. 



Strictly speaking the term "delinquency" applies only to offenders below the 
age of 17. For convenience it is used in this discussion as applied also to 
those offenders in the ages of minority. 



-20- 



The total number of delinquents may not, therefore, mean an equal number of 
ii^dividual children. It is unlikely, however, that there are many instances in 
which the same child is counted more than once in the same year. (Chsur't VII.) 

The fact that the age groups of the Federal Census and those of the 
Massachusetts Board of Probation did not coincide, presented a difficulty in 
calculating delinquency rates. However, since delinquency rates are of greater 
significance if based on the population of the same age, rather than upon the 
total population, estimates were made of the number of children 7-16 years of 
age, and those 17 - 20 years of age residing in each tract.* 

From Table 14 two conclusions may be drawn. In the first place, the 

rates were much higher for the older than for the juvenile group. For Boston as 

a whole, the ratio was four to one. Often it was greater; seldom was it less. 

In the second place, six areas - Charlestown, South Boston, the South, North and 

West Ends and East Boston - were consistently high in each group for both years. 
_ 

Method of Estimating Child Population : 

In making the following estimates it was assumed that the number of individu- 
als in a census age group was equally distributed throughout the years. For 
example, there were 66,229 children in the census age group of 5 - 9 years. On 
this basis, each one of the five years represented was estimated to consist of 
13,246 children. The number of children from 7-9 years of age - those ages 
included in the delinquency age group - was estimated to be three-fifths of the 
total, or 39,758. 



For Children 7-16 Y ea rs of Age : 

Total Census Population Estimated Population 

Age group -5-17 Years 7-16 Ye^rs 

Federal Census 169.821 150,464 

5-0 years 66,229 59,758 (5/5 of total Census group 

10-14 " 64,998 64,998 (Total of " " 

15- 17 n 58.594 25,728 (2/3 of total " " 

Ii9-K Min ors 17-20 Years of Age ; 

Total Census Population Estimated Population 

Age group 15-24 Years 17-20 Years 

Federal Census 156.722 54.586 

15-17 years 38,594 12,864 (l/5 of total Census group 

18-19 " 27,571 27,571 (Total of " " 

20-24 " 70.757 14.151 (1/5 of total " " 



-21- 



I 



CO 



5 



o 
(1) 

O 

1 



w 
•P 
d 

D 



fn -P 

0) a. 
-p o 



<a 



O 









H O 

■P I 0) 

o r~ w 

Eh fH < 

'O C <«H 

<U O O 

P -H 

^ P to 

B oJ ^ 

•H iH td 

P 3 (U 

to P,{M 

W O 
Pui 



•P 

a 

3, 

a 



> 

•-5 



o 
o 

q fl 
H o 

»H P JH W 



0) 0) 



(D cd 

0) P<rH 
-P O I 



o 



.3 






to 

1^ 



CD 



O C- 

E-! 

a 

X) o 

P P 

CO CO 

p " 

w 

W 



Ph 



cd 

'O 0) 

9^ 

P ^H 

rH (C 

cd tM 

Q) rH 

W (D 



to 



CD 
OO 



c^l 



ool 



00 
to 

00 
CO 

•I 



rH 



in 






CD 

to 



O 



d 
o 

o 
m 



C>-rHOOKJK(Ot^CVrHWOOI>-tDCO 

rHCDeOWlOOOrHrHC-t^TjitDr^cO 
C--«DI0t^t~t~-t«-<0050>KjrHWcD 



mwOt^tDtQlO^OOJlCiHOfH 
a3tOtOi-|l«tDTl<cDt-OlOrHWO 

tocogootvcnt^c^ooJwHKjtD 



OJC^K5C7>pHO>^-^-QOWOOWK3C>J 
lOtOiHtOWtDWt>-rHW03Cn«3rH 
rHC\iK3«0^»OHrHCv2C>-Ui»OWCJ 



»OrH'>*02W10lOW^t~lOt>-t^O 
iHCviWC«-'^^rHC\iO>2»OWJ»OWC\i 



oqOlClC^WeOrHH^OOt-OOrHcD 



•* •* 



•* •* 



WtOWOOUJ^HCviWC-x^lOWKi 



tDtDO>ooa(ooHHa>c^u>oiC--a) 

• ••••••••••••• 

OtOOTKJOOtOOJHCDOWKitDOO 
tviiHWH tfi iHtOC\2C\i»OTj< 



toiOcviwc^iO'jtirjt^pH^ltowoo 

00l«CvJ'*O)'<4<-<#Tj<WtO0if-IO00 
iHiHtQrH KirHiHOJrHCViWtO 



»Oloto«DCTJoo"^a>ooa^'*^o^-{r) 

•<*OC^OOrHlO'<*t--C\2C^aOWO«D 



O^fD'^OCOt-itOtOtOHCO'^lO 

■^OtDOllOtDt- OtOOiC^lOlOCD 

iHpHCVi,-|Tj* rHrHWKiHiH 



tOO'^C-OWOOOCOtDLOlOOC"- 
iDOCXJiOOtDWCvicDlOrHOOtQC^ 



C\i 



W rH i-l i-H ,-1 



(S o 



pa 

o 



I A 

I P 

I ^ 

I o 

25 



•H CO 
- fn X 
OQ CQ O 



X! 
P 

o 

CO 

d 
^^ o 

0) P 
P 03 

m o 

O p 
fn CO 

o Cd 



I I I 

I I I 
I I 

I ■ d 

I •H 

I Cd 

rH 



I 



0) 4 

33 •-> 



d X! 

XI P 

X 3 

o o 



o _ _ _ 

a cc; cTj CO 



o 

Pi 

p 

CO 
0) 



o 



v> 
a 
< 

> 

Q 






I- 



n 
< 

Q 






5 





r 

LU 
> 

-7 



^ 



K2 



O 



Ci-i 

o 



^ 2 o 



o 

z 

o 



I 



2 

p. [— 
O 01 

a o 

2 PQ 



CO 

UJ ^ 
3 O 



aJ 



C^ o 



z ;i: £ 



Q 

> 8 c^ o 

~ :==; o 



s 



09 O 

< w 

X o 

'^ o 

>^ 




lo < 

I^ T- "^ 

< Q, a 






O 



u 



o 

1 " 

<^ 
a 

X 

1- 





^ 



^ 



SOUTH BOSTON 



CHACLE.5T0WN 



50UTH END 



&OXBUD.Y 



DODCHESTEHSO. 



BACK BAY 



BRIGHTON 



WEST tOXBUPT 





BOSTON 



^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 



I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I I I I I 



< o 



s 



o 
o 



o 

10 



JAMAICA PUIN 



HYDE PARK 



D0RCHE5TEB.no. 



EAST BOSTON 



NOCTH END 



WE5T END 



CHABT N« 2n 



-22- 

RELIEF 
The statistics upon which the following relief figrires are based 
were obtained from the Department of Public Welfare and the Family Welfare 
Society, the Boston Provident Association, and the Jewish Family Welfare 
Association. The original plan called for a study of all cases active 
on a given day, in each of the four agencies. Differences in record keeping 
and office organization made this impossible, and modifications had to be 
made. The figures were finally obtained upon the following basis: 

1. Three Private Agencies Families receiving relief or service 
during the month of October, 1952. 

2. Department of Public Welfare Families receiving relief from the 
first of Novenber, 1932, to the first of March, 1953. In obtaining the 
information the mailing list of the Department was used. This list is 
divided into four sections: Old Age Assistance, Mothers' Aid, Dependent 
Aid (chronic cases) and Dependent Aid (unemployment cases). As the 
already hard-pressed addressograph operators had to run off the almost 
twenty -^line thousand addresses at odd moments, it took four months to 
complete the lists. Figures for Old Age Assistance and Mothers' Aid 
came through quickly because they were less numerous. They represented, 
therefore, the number of families receiving these two types of aid at 
some time in November. Flgtires for the two classes of Dependent Aid 
were received in seven lots during December, January and February, the 
chronic cases being the first to come through. As the case load for 
these four months showed a steady Increase, rising from 26,817 on the 
first of November, to 32,197 on the first of March, these figures do 

not give as accurate a picture of the work of the Department as would a 
complete count taken in all divisions on the same day. These were, 
however, impossible to obtain. 



-25- 



Department of Public Welfare 

A family is defined by the United States Census of 1950 as " a group 

of persons who live together as one household . Single persons living 

alone are counted as families, however, as are a few small groups of unrelated per- 
sons sharing the same living accommodations as 'partners' . Households rejjorting 
more than 10 lodgers are classified as boarding or lodging houses rather than as 
families." 

Figures from the Department of Public Welfare are based upon its case 
load. Under their system a case may be either a family consisting of a group 
of persons, or a single person living alone. 

There is one point only at which a family, as defined by the census, 
and a case as defined by the Department of Public Welfare fail as suitable units 
of comparison. A lodging house keeper with less than ten lodgers is coiaited 
in the census as a head of a family. The lodgers are excluded from the count. 
Each of the lodgers who may be receiving aid, however, is counted as a case by 
the Department of Public Welfare. As a result, in the districts in which there 
are large numbers of lodging houses, relief rates are unduly high. Since, 
however, these districts are few and are definitely recognized as such (Tables 9, 
10.) due allowance for this discrepancy can easily be made. Since then, the 
unit known as a "family" in the census, and as a "case" by the Department of 
Public Welfare, are the same with the above exception, they will be defined as 
"families" throughout this discussion. 

Since the number of individuals aided by the Department of Public 
Welfare, while estimated, is not definitely known, no valid calculations can be 
made of the percentage of individuals in Boston and its areas who are receiving 
relief. The following tables (Tables 15 and 18.^ give the percentage of 
families receiving relief based on the number of families as enumerated by the 



FAMILIES IN HLALTH AND WELFARE AEEA5 BECEIVING 
RELIEF EROM THE &05TON DEPARTMENT OE PUBLIC WELE\RE 



BOSTON 

50UTH END 
NOETH tND 
E.A5T b05TON 
WE5T END 
CHAI^LE5TOWN 
vSOUTH 505TON 
ROX5UR.Y 
HYDE. PACK. 



PtCCENT XALL 

TOTAL NUM5EE FAMILIE:) 

OF FAMILIES AIDED 

US CENSUS 0ATA-I9SO NOV I9 3t - HAR 19 33 

17 9,189 ZS,938 



JAMAICA PLAIM 



5R.1GHTON 



WE^T ROX5UR.Y 



DACK bAY 



10,5G2 

4,649 
!Z,581 

G.194 

G.691 
13,235 
25,492 

5,540 



DO]^CHE5TEI^ IM02TH 27,941 



1 1, 006 



DORCHE5TEE 50UTH 1(£.,<347 



15,614 



11, 074 



11.561 



4.865 

1,586 

3.210 

1.459 

1,498 

2,8S3 

5,075 

791 

3,257 

1,085 

1.264 

.312 

524 

529 



^WORK RLLIEP 




DEPENDENT AID 

PREPARED FOR. 



^OLD AGL A55I5TANCE 
■ MOTHERS' AID 



THE BO-5TON COUNCIL Or 50C!AL AGtNClt5 

5Y THL EMEIiGENCY PLANNING ^ RE5tAR.CH bUREAU INC. 

&05T0N. MA55. 1933. 

CHART NO "ma 



-24- 



1930 census. TOiile the proportion, 46.3 per cent, of families receiving aid 
in the South End is vmdoubtedly an overstatement as compared with the percent- 
ages shown by the other eureas, its relief load is the heaviest of all. 

TABLE 15. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF FAMILIES RECEIVING RELIEF FROM THE DEPART- 
MENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, BT HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS. NOVEMBER 
1, 1932 - MARCH 1, 1953. 



Health and Total Number Families Receiving Relief 
Welfare Area of Families 

Boston 179.189 

South End 10,562 

North End 4,649 

East Boston 12,581 

West End 6,194 

Charlestown 6,691 

South Boston 13,235 

Roxbury 25,492 

Hyde Park 5,540 

Dorchester North 27,941 

Jamaica Plain 11,008 

Dorchester South 16,847 

Brighton 15,814 

West Roxbury 11,074 

Back Bay 11,561 



The proportion of families receiving aid is indicated by census 
tracts . (Map VI . ) Figures very much higher than those shown by Health and 
Welfare areas are to be found. Tracts in the South End, which showed the 
highest percentage of all, are omitted from this discussion, because of the 
fact already pointed out that they are probably not comparable to other 
districts. Tracts in other areas with especially heavy relief loads were 
F-1 (47.1 per cent), F-3 (69.6 per cent) and F-6 (58.9 per cent), in the 
North End; A-6 (38.6 per cent) and B-3 (40.8 per cent), in East Boston; and 
H-4 (38.2 per cent), in the West End. 



Number 


Per cent 


28.938 


16.1 


4,885 


46.5 


1,588 


34.2 


3,210 


25.5 


1,459 


23.6 


1,498 


22.4 


2,863 


21,6 


5,073 


19.9 


791 


14.3 


3,257 


11.7 


1,085 


9.9 


1,264 


7.5 


912 


5.8 


524 


4.7 


529 


4.6 



-25- 



Uentlon has already been made of the classification of types of aid 
given, by the Department of Public Welfare. The areas varied widely in the 
proportions of families receiving the different types of aid. (Table 16.) 
Straight unemployment cases ranged all the way from 55 per cent of all cases in 
the Back Bay to 62 per cent in South Boston, and 68 per cent in East Boston. 
The chronic cases showed a mdich narrower range of variation. Old Age Assist- 
ance fluctuated from 2.5 per cent in the Horth End and 5 per cent in East 
Boston, to 27.6 per cent in the Back Bay. Mothers' Aid, almost negligible in 
the South End, rose to 6 per cent of all cases in Dorchester South. 

TABLE 16. NUMBER AND PER CENT OF FAMILIES RECEIVING SPECIFIED TYPES OF AID 

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, IN HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1952 - MARCH 1, 1955. 











Families Receiving Aid: 








Health and 






Unemployment 


Dependent 


Old Ag 


e 


Mothers' 


Welfare Area 


Total 


Aid 


Aid 




Assistance 
Per 


Aid 








Per 




Per 




Per 




Per 




Number 


cent 


Number 


cent 


Number 


cent 


Number 


cent 


Niimber 


cent 


Boston 


28,958 


100 


15.870 


54.8 


8.655 


29.9 


5.524 


11.5 


1.091 


5.8 


Back Bay — 


529 


100 


176 


55.2 


205 


58.4 


146 


27.6 


4 


.8 


Brighton 


912 


100 


588 


42.5 


511 


54.2 


168 


18.4 


45 


4.9 


Charlestown 


1,498 


100 


807 


55.9 


420 


28.0 


194 


15.0 


77 


5.1 


Dorchester North 


5,257 


100 


1,763 


54.1 


854 


26.2 


455 


14.0 


185 


5.7 


Dorchester South 


1,264 


100 


651 


49.9 


505 


24.0 


255 


20.2 


75 


5.9 


East Boston 


5,210 


100 


2,168 


67.6 


749 


25.5 


165 


5.1 


128 


4.0 


Hyde Park 


791 


100 


485 


61.5 


192 


24.5 


85 


10.5 


51 


5.9 


West Roxbury 


524 


100 


260 


49.6 


157 


26.2 


98 


18.7 


29 


5.5 


Jamaica Plain — 


1,085 


100 


642 


59.2 


254 


21.6 


160 


14.7 


49 


4.5 


North End 


1,588 


100 


950 


59.8 


520 


52.8 


40 


2.5 


78 


4.9 


Roxbury 


5,073 


100 


2,614 


51.5 


1,689 


55.5 


600 


11.8 


170 


5.4 


South Boston 


2,865 


100 


1,756 


61.4 


757 


25.7 


244 


8.5 


126 


4.4 


South End 


4,885 


100 


2,470 


50.6 


1,768 


56.2 


615 


12.5 


54 


.7 


West End 


1,459 


100 


760 


52.1 


556 


56.7 


105 


7.1 


60 


4.1 



-?.6- 

Prlvate Agencies 

The case loads of the three private agencies,- the Family Welfare 
Society, the Boston Provident Association and the Jewish Family Welfare 
Association,- totalled 2,789 families. Many of the persons included in 
these families were xjndoubtedly counted in the statistics of the Department 
of Public Welfare, because of the practice of the private agencies of giving 
supplementary relief eind case work service to families aided by the public 
department. Because of the fact that names of the Department of Public 
Welfare families were not given, no checking of individuals could be done. 
Accordingly no attempt should be made to total the two sets of figures. 
There are, however, comparisons which can be made: 

1. The distribution of families by Health and Welfare Areas. 

2. The proportion of cases receiving relief by Health and Welfeire Areas. 

Study of the distribution of families by areas revealed a similarity 
between those known to public and private agencies, in all save those of East 
Boston, Dorchester North and Dorchester South. Eleven and one-tenth per cent of 
all families known to the Department of P*ublic Welfare lived in East Boston; while 
the corresponding figure was but 4.4 per cent for the private agencies. In the 
other two areas the private agencies were carrying relatively heavier loads, the 
difference being 17.6 per cent as against 11.5 per cent for Dorchester North and 
9.1 per cent as against 4.4 per cent for Dorchester South. (Table 17, p. 27.) 

Of all the families living in Boston, 16.1 per cent, or about one- 
sixth, were on the lists of the Department of Public Welfare; while 1.6 per 
cent were receiving relief or service from the three private agencies. The 
South Bad, already indicated as the district in which the greatest proportion 
of families were receiving relief from the Department of Public Welfare, 
occupied a similar position in relation to other areas as regards relief and 
service given by the private agencies. (Table 18, p. 27.) 



-27- 



TABLE 17. DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES KNOTO TO RELIEF AGENCIES BY HEALTH AND 
WELFARE AREAS. 



Departmept of Public Welfare 



Health and 
Welfare Area 



Number 

of 

Families 



Per cent 

Distribution 

of Families 



Three Private Agencies 



Health and 
Welfare Area 



Number 

of 

Families 



Per cent 
Distribution 
of Families 



Boston 



28,938 



Roxbury 5,075 

South End 4,885 

Dorchester North — 5,257 

East Boston 5,210 

South Boston 2,865 

North End 1,588 

Charlestown 1,498 

West End 1,459 

Dorchester South — 1,264 

Jamaica Plain 1,085 

Brighton 912 

Hyde Park 791 

Back Bay 529 

West Roxbury 524 



100.0 Boston 2,789 100.0 

17.5 Roxbury 508 18.2 

16.9 Dorchester North - 491 17.6 

11.5 South End 569 13.2 

11.1 Dorchester South - 254 9.1 

9,9 South Boston 208 7.4 

5.5 West End 207 7.4 

5.2 East Boston 125 4.4 

5.0 Hyde Park 115 4.1 

4.4 Charlestown 115 4.1 

5.7 Back Bay 105 5.8 

5.2 West Roxbury 84 5.1 

2.7 Jamaica Plain 81 2.9 

1.8 Brighton 76 2.7 

1.8 North End 55 2.0 



TABLE 18. PERCENT OF FAMILIES KNOWN TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES BY HEALTH 
AND WELFARE AREAS. 



Department of Public Welfare 



Three Private Agencies 



Boston 



16.1 



Boston 



1.6 



South End 46.3 

North End 54.2 

East Boston 25.5 

West End 23.6 

Charlestown 22.4 

South Boston 21.6 

Roxbury 19.9 

Hyde Park 14.5 

Dorchester North — 11.7 

Jamaica Plain 9.9 

Dorchester South — 7.5 

Brighton 5.8 

West Roxbury 4.7 

Back Bay 4.6 



South End 3.5 

West End 5.5 

Hyde Park 2.1 

Roxbury 2.0 

Dorchester North — 1.8 

Charlestown 1.7 

South Boston 1.6 

Dorchester South — 1.5 

North End 1.2 

East Boston 1.0 

Back Bay .9 

West Roxbury .8 

Jamaica Plain .7 

Brighton .5 



-28- 



CORRELATIONS 
Discussion up to this point has centered upon the analysis by tables, 
maps and charts, of the various sets of statistics available for the study of 
neighborhoods. As already stated, this material in no way represents final 
evaluation, but outlines a method for study of material which lends itself to 
wide interpretation. Conditions which appear to be of significance about any 
one area or tract have been pointed out throughout. Because of the complexi- 
ties of modem city life, however, one fact about a city or a neighborhood 
should not be considered except in its relationship to other facts. 

Therefore, the attempt is now made to bring together all of the 
social and health factors which have been already considered separately, in 
order to discover, if possible, whether any correlations exist between them. 
In Table 19, the standing shown by the fourteen Health and Welfare 
areas iii each of the many subjects already discussed, is considered, and 
ratings from (l) to (14) are given, (l) signifying for the most part unsatis- 
factory conditions. So far as the foreign bom are concerned (1) stands for 
the highest proportion of foreign bom, and of aliens; while (14) signifies 
the lowest proportion of foreign born and of aliens. For the rest; 

(1) stands for the lowest median rents, the smallest percentage of 

owned homes, the densest population, the highest rates for deaths, 
disease and delinquency, and the largest percentage of persons aided. 
(14) on the other hand, signifies the highest median rents, the largest 
percentage of owned homes, the least dense population, the lowest 
rates for deaths, disease 6uid delinquency, and the smallest propor- 
tion of persons aided. 

In so rough a correlation, the only point of significance is the 
presence or absence of high or low numbers for any one area. The shades of 



I 

0> 
CV) 

I 



g 



i 



a 







o 
































■P 




























%4 




•H 


rH 


CO 


to 


OO 


s 


to 


1-t 


Ol 


^ 


l>- 


rH 


CM 


CM 
rH 


a 




■5: 




























s 




o 

1 ^ 


H 


lO 


O) 


d 


»Q 


00 


s 


CM 


t^ 


to 


rH 


^ 


to 

rH 








H 


CM 


o» 


OD 


e- 


s 


1-4 


to 


lO 


rH 


■* 


lO 


to 

rH 




o 
































M 






























1 


s 






























1 


H 


S 


lO 


00 


s 


<D 


;4 


o> 


^ 


c» 


CM 


lO 


rH 


































H 
































S 


O 

1 


to OO 

H 

O 


s 


U5 


<n 


rH 


^ 


CM 


:i 


CM 


t^ 


to 


lO 


H 


S 




»-s 






CM 


rH 
rH 


n 

rH 


rH 


3 


Ol 


U) 


00 


-"J" 


to 


to 


rH 




^ 


13 « 


w 


^ 


t- 


O 


rH 


n 


01 


CM 


CO 


(D . 


to 


to 


rH 




OT ^ 


rH 






rH 




H 














H 




t* 


rH 































































j:: 
































■p 
































^ 
































Q 


s » 


■* 


)H 


w 


o 


IQ 


CM 


Ol 


in 


t- 


m 


CM 


^ 


r-i 




a 


Ol rH 

r-l 


t-i 






S 




t-i 














rH 






»0 rH 


CJ 


^ 


lO 


o 


to 


^ 


CO 


lO 


lO 


CM 


rH 


Ol 


t- 






O) .H 


rH 




rH 


^ 




iH 




















i-H 






























m 
































J3 
































4J 



































A lO 






























<w 


lO 


OJ 


■^ 


O 


00 


tD 


t^ 


■^ 


CM 


r-t 


lO 


^ 






a> rH 


H 






rH 


r-i 




















rH 




























5 
































iH 
































3 




rH 




























tc 


a 


n o 


'i' 


CM 


:i 


CM 


in 


(71 


«o 


lO 


^ 


CO 


rH 


c^ 


OO 




•H n 


<n rH 


r^ 




H. 






t-t 
















n o 


H 






























O o 
































H « 
3 O 
































O 
































i;S 


A to 


lO 


W 


o> 


■<J< 


o 


CM 


rH 


00 


to 


CM 


rH 


^ 


e* 




J3 es 


O) 


*-l 






H 


rH 


rH 


rH 
















5 


rH 
































S « 


o 


i-t 


O) 


^ 


to 


(D 


CM 


CM 


t- 


<D 


'i* 


-* 


lO 




*.J5 


r- 


s 










rH 










rH 


rH 




si 
































'" A 
































4 


S t- 


o> 


■o 


«) 


O 


u> 


^ 


CM 


^ 


00 


rH 


CM 


« 


rH 




a 


o 








t-i 




i-i 


rH 










rH 


rH 




^i 


g 




























•H O 


•H t^ 


o 


^ 


O) 


>~t 


to 


•^ 


CM 


H 


OO 


to 


to 


CM 


to 


n cu 


■P 


r^ 






f-i 




H 


rH 












rH 


g<M 


^ 




























a 


tg 






























*> ■* 


» 


rH 


<» 


H 


■^f 


00 


O 


CM 


C-- 


« 


to 


to 


CM 




a fH 


r^ 






*~* 






rH 












rH 




<s 




























..l 


o 




























e o 


•rl lO 


to 


b- 


CT> 


CM 


o 


KJ 


a 


H 


U5 


OD 


tT 


W 


^ 


= 1 


•§ 








rH 


r-i 


H 












H 






a 


CM 


o 


Ol 


CM 


t- 


•"f 


rH 


CO 


lO 


*# 


(O 


to 




s ^ 


t-i 


^ 








rH 












rH 




^ 






























:a 




























^ 


g 3 


to 

rH 


S 


(O 


lO 


CM 


cn 


S 


H 


(D 


^ 


^- 


to 


CM 
rH 


v 






























(< 


CQ 




























o 






o 










« 






o 








1^ 






p 










■P 






4A 








^E 






s 










5 






$ 












CO 










Q 






CO 








3 to 






« 










• 






v> 








Is 


O 




<D 










o 






9 












£ 










£ 






£ 








t^ « 


^ 




e 


OJ 










0) 




« 


(d 


(0 


13 <D 


O TI 


xi 


*H 


■H 


^ 


>> 


J3 


t>> 


•rf 


A 




iH 


Xt 


tD U 


d 


(S 


n 


a 


03 


HT 


m 


»-f 


n 


(0 




CD 




ts 


1 


§ 


(4 






5 

M 


3 

M 


■H 


3 


03 




o 


(0 


CJ 


a 






























o 


m 




























•H 


0) 




























4^ 


1 ' 


+ 


) 


+ 


+ 


1 


+ 


+ 


1 


+ 


1 


1 


1 


+ 


t 




























O 






























(L, 






e 


5 

U 

o 

K 
U 


5 

CO 


8 




5 

a) 
H 












^ 








o 


V 


a> 


■P 


M 


Ol 


■o 




(D 


T) 




« 


(0 


>> 


d 


■p 


+3 


■p 


tD 


U 




.3 

xi 




O 


.a 
1 


T» 


4) 









n 

5 


5 


O 


£ 


a) 


1 


X3 


S 


<S 




M 


bo 


i 


O 


o 


•P 


(P 


1 

•-> 


+3 




+J 


4J 


+> 




U 


^ 


b 


u 


CO 


•o 


b 


3 




n 


a 






u 


s 


o 


a 


& 


^ 


o 


5 


<g 


s 


£ 





SE 



CO) to 

En « 

O a -rl 



O at 



rH -H a 
•H O O 

«d O rH 
(m Fh ^ 



<d d a o 

to o 
(« -H t. 
-P O 

o d (^ ^ 

o* a o 
•H a. m 

Tl O (D 

a o L| 4-> 

d a £ ^ 

GPP 

(0 03 P I 

-p 0} <D n 
(D x: tkO a> I 

01 bp tr t 



rl "H -H 

r^ Fh ti 

&o o o 
a, o, a, 
coop 

:3 IX £ d* 

q -p +> +> 

•rJ ID to B) 

O <D O 



'SE 

> < O 
J O ^ 

> 0) d 

1 -H 60 a 
* H -H d 
I -H 01 3 

Sh tH 
O rH 

1 (X4 C^ •■^ 



d -p o 

o a -H >* 

•H ® p o 

p n h ^ 

a o 

Ud o> o 

3 o o 

-O £ d 
a. o £ 

a -p 

P OP 

01 p O (0 
O in rH o 
a O rH jC 

gg g^ 

O »J CO U3 



p p -p 

tH b tl 

5. D< GU 

o o o 

£ a. £ 
p p p 



QO uU C0 



-50- 

difference which exist in the various rankings cannot be indicated by such a 
scheme . 

Study of this table reveals a preponderance of low numbers in the South 
End. It had consistently the worst record of all the areas for tuberculosis and 
for relief; and its infant death rate was high. Charlestown was another area 
which presented an almost equally dreary picture. South Boston and the North 
End were next in order. 

On the other heind, the Back Bay, in spite of its somewhat heterogene- 
ous makeup, including as it does not only the district commonly known as the Back 
Bay, but a rather poor apartment house district around the Fenway as well, and 
the suburbsin areas were on a distinctly higher economic level than many of the 
others, and had rather consistently good records - Brighton perhaps the most 
uniformly so. 

Out of dreary mediocrity or of good or bad extremes, however, appeared 
certain inconsistencies so intriguing as to make further study a necessity. 
Why, for example, did West Roxbur^-, with a record otherwise so good, make so 
poor a showing as regards its rates for new cases of tuberculosis? Why had the 
West End, whose ranking for every other item was poor, the proudest record for 
infant mortality? Why was the Back Bay so spotty as regards delinquency, and 
certain health figures? 

CONCLUSIONS 
Only more intensive study of the fig\ire3 now available by census 
tracts, and of the danger signals which they raise, can bring a more exact 
knowledge £uad a deeper understanding of the problems with which the construct- 
ive forces in Boston must grapple, if they are to achieve results commensurate 
with their potentialities. 



-51- 

The Covmcil of Social Agencies is accordingly bringing to its 
member agencies this outline of a new method of study in the confident 
expectation that they will use the rich material to which it is a key, as 
a measuring stick for the neighborhoods in which they are working, and as 
a stepping stone to the collection of still more facts helpful in meeting 
the problems with which social work is concerned. 



SOCIAL STATISTICS 

BY 
CENSUS TRACTS IN BOSTON 



VOLUME II 



BOSTON COUNCIL OF SOCIAL AGENCIES 
BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND STUDIES 

43 TREMONT STREET, BOSTON 

JULY," 1935 



SOCIAL STATISTICS 
BY 
CENSUS TRACTS IN BOSTON 



VOLUME II 



Boston Council of Social Agencies 
Bureau of Research and Studies 
45 Tremont Street, Boston 
July, 1935 



t3t3 






FOREWORD 



This is the second report dealing with the interpretation 
of social statistics on the basis of census tracts which the Boston 
Council of Social Agencies has published. 

The occasion for producing this second report is found in 
the recent Massachusetts Census of Unemployment, undertaken in 1934 
as a C, W, A, project for women, which provides population statis- 
tics more recent than those of the Federal Census of 1950. 

We wish to express our thanks to those organizations which 
have supplied the data used in the report. We are especially in- 
debted to Roswell F, Phelps, Director of the Division of Statistics 
of the Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries, under whose 
sponsorship the census 'oroject was carried out; and to the members 
of the census staff with whom we have had cordial cooperation from 
the beginning to the end of the project. We are likewise again in- 
debted to the Massachusetts Board of Probation, the Boston Health 
Department, and the Family Tv'elfare Society of Boston, all of whom 
furnished valuable statistical data; and to the Emergency Planning 
and Research Bureau for the preparation of maps and charts. 

This report, like the first, was prepared under the direc- 
tion of Mary A. Clapp, Director of the Bureau of Research and Studies. 




'/c'-^^— < 



Executive Secretary, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

1 - Census Tracts and Health and Welfare Areas 1 

2 - Massachusetts Census of UnemploTinent 2 

3 - Population Trends. ....• 5 

4 - Density of Poptilation 5 

5 - Unemployment. • • 6 

Unemployment Among General Population 
Unemployment Among Young People 
Unemployment Among the Colored 

6 - Delinquency 14 

7 - Health 18 

Infant Mortality 
Tuberculosis 

8 - Relief and Family Service 23 

9 - Conclusions. .• 25 

10 - Appendix - Boundaries of He=^lth and Welfare Areas 27 



MAPS 

I - 

II - 

III - 

IV - 

V - 

VI - 



Following 
Page; 



Population Trends by Health and Welfare Areas 4 

Use of Land in Boston 5 

Density of Population by Census Tracts 5 

Unemployment by Census Tracts * • 9 

Juvenile Delinquency by Census Tracts 17 

Infant Mortality by Census Tracts. 21 



CHARTS 

I - Unemployment by Health and Welfare Areas,,.,,,.,,,., 9 

II - Unemployment Among Young Persons 13 

III - Juvenile Delinquency by Health and Welfare Areas.. 17 

IV - Infant Mortality by Health and Welfare Areas - Four-Year Aver- 

age... 20 

V - Tuberculosis by Health and Welfare Areas - New Cases and 

Deaths 25 



TABLES 



Page ; 



1 - Population Trends in Boston by Health and Welfare Areas, 

1920-1950-1954 5 

2 - Density of Population in 1950 and 1934 by Health and Welfare 

Areas. •.••,••,..,•,,••......,,,,,•••,...,•,.....•....*..• 6 

5 - Employable Persons in Population, January 2, 1954,. 7 

4 - Employment Status of Employable Persons, January 2, 1954 9 

5 - Unemployment by Health and Welfare Areas, April, 1930 and 

^ January, 1951 10 

6 - Rank of Health and Welfare Areas in Unemployment, 1950, 1951, 

and 1954 11 

7 - Employable Workers and Those not Seeking Employment, Among 

Young Persons 14-20 Years of Age, Boston 12 

8 - Employment Status of Young Persons 14-20 Years of Age, Boston 15 

9 - Unemployment Among Racial Groups in Boston, January 2, 1954... 14 

10 - Unemployment Among White and Colored Persons in Nine Census 

Tracts in Boston, January 2, 1934., ....,,........• 15 

11 - Juvenile Delinquency by Health and Welfare Areas, 1931-1934... 17 

12 - Rank of Health and Welfare Areas in Juvenile Delinquency...... 18 

15 - Infant Mortality by Health and Welfare Areas 20 

14 - Rank of Health and Welfare Areas in Infant Mortality, 1930- 

1955 21 

15 - Tuberculosis in Boston by Health and Welfare Areas - Average 

for Four Years, 1930-1954 25 

16 - Ratio of Major Service Cases of Family Welfare Society to 

Population, ..,•• , , ••••, 24 



CENSUS TRACTS AND HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 

In 1955 the Boston Co^lncil of Social Agencies issued a report, "Social 
Statistics by Census Tracts in Boston", which outlined at some length the method 
of and reasons for collecting statistics by census tracts, stressed the advisabil- 
ity of defining districts or neighborhoods, and cited statistics from the United 
States Census, the Boston Health Department, the Public Welfare Department, the 
Massachusetts Probation Commission, and three private family service agencies. 

Since that time, there has been an increasing use of census tract mate- 
rial - an indication of a growing demand on the part of social and health agencies 

for comparable and reliable statistics. 

(1) 

At the risk of repeating what has already been outlined at length, it 

should be stated that a census tract is a geographical unit with fixed boundaries, 
laid out by the United States Census Bureau for enumeration purposes. Thus it 
differs from the ward, a political division, the boundaries of which are changed 
from time to time. For this reason, in any two periods, figures for tracts can 
be safely compared, while those for wards may be utterly incomparable. Since the 
census tract is a fairly small unit - Boston is divided into 128 - it has seemed 
advisable to group them into a number of larger districts. Quite arbitrarily, 
then, but with an honest endeavor to make boundaries conform in so far as possible 
to those of well-acceoted neighborhoods, fourteen so-called "Health and Welfare 
Areas" have been established, (See Appendix.) 

Several social agencies in Boston oDerate on a district plan. Few of 

(1) - "Social Statistics by Census Tracts in Boston", 1955, p,5. 



their botmdaries, even though their districts go by the selfsame names,- Roxbury, 
the West End, Hyde Park, Dorchester,- exactly coincide. It would obviously be 
impossible, then, to compare the figures for "Roxbury" as given by one agency 
with those as given by another. 

Undoubtedly, the botmdaries of these various operating districts are 
entirely satisfactory to the various agencies. Possibly they think that the 
boundaries of some census tracts or health and welfare areas are quaint and il- 
logical, and they, see no reason why they shou?-d change their districts to con- 
form. However, what may seem fantastic to one may be perfectly logical to an- 
other, for, in the final analysis, boundaries are nebulous things,- largely 
matters of opinion and association. By and large, the botindaries of the health 
and welfare areas conform to the common conception of the districts whose names 
they bear. 

However, districts for operation and districts for statistical record- 
ing may well be two quite separate things. Although it may be that the obstacles 
in the path of uniform operating districts are too many and too high to surmount, 
there is little excuse for not having uniformity in district recording, when the 
device for carrying it on is so simple. 

MASSACHUSETTS CENSUS OF U:JEMPL0YMIi2IT 

Early in 1934, a census, sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of 
Labor and Industries, and carried on as a woman's project tinder the program of 
the Civil Works Administration, was made to determine the amount of unemployment 
in the state. At the very outset, the Boston Council of Social Agencies became 
interested in that part of the project which concerned the City of Boston, In 



-5- 

(1) 

spite of the fact that it was not an official census, it is a well-checked enum- 
eration of the population of Boston at a point almost midway between the Federal 
Census of 1930 and that of 1940, for, in preparing it, constant reference was made 
to the Federal Census of 1930, and discrepancies were careftilly checked, in a few 
instances whole census tracts being re-eniimerated. In addition, it offers a new 
base for the computation of rates of various kinds. Since it includes a tabula- 
tion of children and young people in each age group from 7 to 20 years of age, it 
affords more satisfactory bases for delinquency rates than does the Federal Census, 
the age groupings of which do not coincide with the Massachusetts delinquency age 

groupings, thereby making it necessary to estimate the total number of children of 

(2) 
appropriate age in the population. The preliminary report of this census has al- 
ready been published by the Massachusetts DeDartment of Labor and Industries, and 

(5) 

the final report is about to be issued. 

(l) - Report of the Census of Unemployment (Preliminary Report), Massachusetts De- 
partment of Labor and Industries, 1934: 

"In order that the census might be exhaustive, it was necessary to make a 
thorough house-to-house canvass in each city and town. Incidentally, the 
population of the cities and towns was ascertained, but the census should 
not be considered as an official census of the population of the State or 
of the individual cities and towns, (p. 2) 

"Althoi;i£h this census was not an official census of the population, it is 
believed that the population returns are substantially correct, becnuse a 
thorough house-to-house canvass in each city and town was made, in order to 
secure information relative to all persons who r°re unemployed." (p. 15) 

(2)- "Social Statistics by Census Tracts in Boston", 19S5, p. 20. 

(3)- If there are apparent discrepancies between the figures cited in this report 
and those published in the preliminarj' report of the census, it is due to 
the fact that the former includes staff members and inmates of institutions 
in order that they may be comparable to those of the Federal Census which in- 
cludes the inmates of institutions. The population of health and welfare 
areas, as given in the Preliminary Report, (p. 218), excludes the staff and in- 
mates of Boston Home for Incurables, Boston Psychopathic Hospital, Boston 
St'ite Hospital, Charlestown State Prison, Mattapan Sanatorixim, Suffolk County 
Jail, end the institutions in the harbor islands. With all adjustments made, the 
two sets of figures check. 



-4- 



POPULATION TRENDS 



By this census the population of Boston (as of January 2, 19?4), ex- 
clusive of census tract B-6, which is composed of the population of the harbor 

(1) 
islands, was foiand to be 774,470. According to the Federal Census of 1950, 

the comparable figure was 776,978, In the four-year period, then, there has 

(2) 
been a slight decrease in the population of the city - 4508 or ,6 per cent. 

In the preceding decade, 1920-1950, wide changes of population took 

place in sense health and welfare areas, the general rule being decreases in the 

congested central areas and increases in the less densely settled outer areas. 

For the most part, the same trends have continued, though in less degree, in the 

four-year period, (Table 1 and Map I,) Back Bay, Charlestown, the North End, 

South Boston, and the South End showed decreases in both periods; Dorchester 

North, Dorchester South, Hyde Park, and West Roxbury consistently increased, 

Roxbury and East Boston showed little change. Although Brighton, Jamaica Plain, 

and the ?/est End fluctuated considerably, examination of the figures shows that 

in general greater movements in population took place in the ten-year 'oeriod from 

1920 to 19?0, than in the shorter four-year period between 1930 and 1954, The 



CL) - See Footnote 5, p,5. 

(2)- Substantiation of this decrease in population is found in the figures of ele- 
mentary school attendance for the same period. Elementary school attendance 
bears a fairly constant ratio to total population from year to year, and is, 
accordingly, a check on it. In Boston, in the five-year neriod, it, too, has 
decreased slightly. 

Elementary School Enrollment (Grades I- VIII) 
in Boston Public and Parochial Schools 1929-1954 

Autumn Autumn Autumn 
1954 1955 1929 

Total 110.195 112.021 115.446 

Public Schools 82,656 84,145 87,287 
Parochial Schools 27,559 27,878 28,169 



sS 




r F o o n n 

CO 2 O 

^ n n 

(jD ^ (/) ,^ 00 



-< 
n c 

2 (/> 



o 

CO 

H 
O 

z 



movement away from the heart of the city to its outer fringes, noted after the 

1950 tabulations, is still in progress. 

T/vBLl:; 1. POPULATION TRtJIDS IN BOSTON ET HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 

1920-1950-1954 

Figures for 1920 and 1950 from United States Census; 
for 1954 from Massachusetts Census of Unemployment 









Increase or 


Decrease 


in Popiyl^atioa 


Health and 


Total Population 


Niimber 


Per 


cent 


Welfare Area 








1920- 


1950- 


1920- 


1950- 




1920 


1950 


1934 


1950 


1954 


1950 


1934 


Boston 


748,060 


778.976 


774.470 


+30.916 


-4.508 


+ 4.1 


- 0.6 


Back Bay 


59,971 


58,887 


56,191 


- 1,084 


-2,696 


- 2.7 


- 6.9 


Brighton 


42,104 


56,562 


54,965 


+14,258 


-1,597 


+55.9 


- 2.5 


CharlestoTim 


54,272 


51,665 


50,252 


- 2,609 


-1,431 


- 7.6 


- 4.5 


Dorchester North 


114,627 


120,055 


122,095 


+ 5,426 


+2,040 


+ 4.7 


+ 1.7 


Dorchester South 


50,947 


74,445 


78,128 


+23,498 


+3,685 


+46.1 


+ 4.9 


East Boston 


60,778 


59,242 


62,565 


- 1,536 


+5,123 


- 2.6 


+ 5.3 


Hyde Park 


18,209 


24,498 


27,502 


+ 6,289 


+5,004 


+54.5 


+12.5 


Jamaica Plain 


36,808 


44,542 


45,451 


+ 7,754 


-1,091 


+21.0 


- 2.4 


North End 


31,685 


27,518 


25,411 


- 5,865 


-4,407 


-12.2 


-15.8 


Roxbury 


105,771 


105,790 


104,518 


+ 19 


-1,272 


— 


- 1.2 


South Boston 


65,439 


59,728 


57,562 


- 5,711 


-2,566 


- 8.7 


- 4.0 


South End 


72,819 


60,506 


55,295 


-12,515 


-5,215 


-16.9 


- 8.6 


West End 


40,699 


28,028 


28,687 


-12,671 


+ 659 


-51,3 


+ 2.4 


West Roxbury 


51,^56 


47,414 


50,272 


+16,158 


+2,858 


+51.7 


+ 6.0 



DENSIll' OF POPULATION 

Similarly, the changes of population have not been great in the four- 
year period. No great industrial or business projects have been constructed to 
clear away whole residential sections, and large housing projects have not as 
yet been started, (Table 2.) 

vihen figures for 1920, 1950, and 1954 were compared, it was found that 
those for census tracts F-5 and F-6 fluctuated considerably, due to a different 
tabulation of the inhabitants of the Wayfarers' Lodge, and the men stationed 
■with the Coast Guard in 1930. Undoubtedly, therefore, the copulation of the 
North End as given in the 1930 census was greater and its density higher than in 
actuality; but even if corrections were made, it would have been then, as it 
still is, by far the most densely populated district in the whole city. (Map III.) 








c 




rn 


■ s 


o 


\' ? 




1 o - 


> 


» i! . 


Z 


l ^S ■ 


a 


i gS' ' 


, . 




■^ 




KV 




(.) 


! S 1 


(A 


' 5 


-H 


E r. 


o 



D 
E 
> 

s 






■<^.- 



<$■'> 



-\ 



/ 



<M 



''-'!»:- y 



/ 



(\ 



^^ 



\. 



> / 



X 



,> /^ 






X 



,#• 



N^ 



\ 



y 



.^i 



\/ 



^t^^>^ 



f\ / 



"% 



?-rit 



^3. 



^ 



\ 



^ 




■C,- 



iSi 



f 



O O ->, -D 

S S :: ? 

g S • S ^ 

5 i i " 

E ? ;; T 



If^ 



J ^ 



2 ro \^ 






J. c T^ 



\ 



^-^ -v^ 



-6- 



•TABLE 2. DENSITY OF POPULATION IN 1930 AND 1954 BY HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 



Health and 
Welfare Area 



Number of Acres 

Inhabited 



1950 



1954 



Number of Persons 
per Inhabited Acre 
1950 1954 



Boston 



6«945 



7.028 



112 



110 



Back Bay 
Brighton 
Charlestoim 
Dorchester North 
Dorchester South 
East Boston 
Hyde Park 
Jamaica Plain 
North End 
Roxbury 
South Boston 
South End 
West End 
West Roxbury 



233 


235 


167 


155 


712 


728 


79 


76 


124 


119 


256 


256 


1,105 


1,106 


109 


110 


955 


961 


78 


81 


295 


292 


201 


214 


559 


550 


46 


50 


648 


655 


69 


66 


35 


35 


799 


675 


730 


750 


145 


145 


280 


275 


214 


210 


188 


188 


322 


295 


84 


84 


334 


342 


1,017 


1,074 


47 


47 



UNEMPLOYMENT 

Unemployment Among General Population 

The "Census of Unemployment in Massachusetts" contains information as 

to thie number and kinds of persons i^o were unemployed on January 2, 1934, In 

every cily and town of the state a house-to-house canvass was made, and persons 

were classified according to age, sex, color, usual occupation, whether or not 

they were wholly or partially employed, whether or not they desired jobs, and, 

if unemployed, for how long« Certain figures were compiled by census tracts, 

(1) 
and while not appearing in the published report, except in one summary table, are 

on file in the office of the Boston Council of Social Agencies for the use of 

those interested. 



Cl)- Report of the Census of Unemployment in Massachusetts, p, 218. 



-7- 



(1) 



One fact which this census determined was the number of employable 



workers - those actually at work, or seeking work - in each tract and area. The 
niimber of emT)loyable persons has been used here as the base in calculating the 
percentage of unemployment, rather than the total population, which includes 
children, old people, and persons not seeking employment, a group which varies 
considerably in different areas. 
TABLE 5. EMPLOYABLE PERSONS IN POPULATION, JANUARY P, 1954 



(2) 



Figures from Massachusetts Census of Unemployment 





Total Population 


Persons Not 


Seeking 


Employable 


Persons 


Health and 






EmDloyment 






Welfare Area 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Number 


Percent 


Boston 


774.470 


100 


457.405 


56.5 


357.067 


43.5 


Back Bay 


56,191 


100 


14,598 


S9,8 


21,795 


60.2 


Brighton 


54,965 


100 


29,957 


54,5 


25,028 


45.5 


Charlestown 


50,232 


100 


18,069 


59.8 


12,165 


40.2 


Dorchester North 


122,095 


100 


70,658 


57,9 


51,455 


42.1 


Dorchester South 


78,128 


100 


46,240 


59.2 


51,888 


40.8 


East Boston 


62,366 


100 


39,273 


63.0 


25,092 


57.0 


Hyde Park 


27,502 


100 


16,906 


61.5 


10,596 


S8,5 


Jamaica Plain 


43,451 


100 


25,030 


57.6 


18,421 


42.4 


North End 


23,411 


100 


13,635 


58.2 


9,776 


41.8 


Roxbury 


104,518 


100 


60,104 


57.5 


44,414 


42.5 


South Boston 


57,562 


100 


54,271 


59.7 


25,091 


40.5 


South End 


55,293 


100 


25,905 


45.2 


51,590 


56.8 


West End 


28, -6 87 


100 


14,149 


49.3" 


14,558 


50»7 


West Roxbury 


50,272 


100 


30,850 


61.5 


19,442 


58.7 



(1)- "Employable Persons - Includes all persons 14 years of age or over, who were 
employed or who were able to work and seeking employment. Pupils in school, 
housewives, persons unable to work, retired and aged persons, and persons 
voluntarily unemployed for other reasons were not considered as employable. 
For puTDoses of this census, children vinder 14 years of age were considered 
as unemployable for the reason that under the provisions of the National Re- 
covery Act the employment of children londer 14 years of age is prohibited." 
Report on the Census of Unemployment in Massachusetts, p. 10, 

(2)- The figures in Table 3 and Table 4 differ in several instances from those 
already published in the preliminary report. This is due to two reasons: 

(a) The figures in this text include the inhabitrmts of all institutions, 
whereas those in the preliminary rer>ort exclude a certain number al- 
ready noted, 

(b) The figvires in this text were compiled from tabulations obtained from 
the Census of Unemployment, Later adjustments, concerned largely with 
the institutional population, have proved, under Dresent conditions, 
to be extremely difficult to check. However, in no instance is the 
discrepancy so great that it materially alters the percentage in £iny 
one category. 



-8- 

The percentage of persons irtio were wholly tin employed, on this basis, 
ranged all the way from 40,2 per cent in the North End to 12 per cent in Back 
Bay. (Table 4, Chart I), It must be remembered that the census of xinemploy- 
ment was taken before the establishment of the ERA, and that the CWA had not 
even reached its peak. The census listed those employed on government projects, - 
11,948 for the whole city. Thotagh the North End health and welfare area shows 
the greatest proportion of unemployment, two census tracts in East Boston, how- 
ever, - B-1 with 51 per cent and B-4 with 49,9 per cent - show the highest per- 
centage of unemployment in the city, (Map IV,) 

Twice before, tinemployment figures by census tracts have been avail- 
able. The number of unemployed was established when the United States Census 
was compiled on April 15, 1950, A second count was made by the Census Bureau 
in January of the following year. In these tabulations unemployed oersons were 
grouped in one of two categories: first, that composed of persons out of a job, 
able to work and looking for work; and second, that composed of p-^rsons having 
jobs but on lay-off without pay. All persons who were sick or voluntarily idle 
were not considered to be unemployed, (Table 5,) Actual comparisons of the 
three tabulations do not yield valid results. Since the first two were made in 
different months, there were bound to be seasonal fluctuations. Again, no 
exact comparison ?rith the figures of the Census of Unemployment can be made as 
the total number of employable persons is used as a base in this discussion, 
while the percentages of the other two are based on the total population. 

However, these three tabulations can be tied together by ranking the 
health and welfare areas according to the degree of unemployment in any one, 
no matter how figured, and then comparing these relative ratings. In Table 6 
the area which has the highest percentage of unemployment in any one year is 
rated as one, while that with the lowest is rated as fourteen, the others com- 



-9- 



W00O'^«t-00i-4O00CVirHlOO 



'I' 

to 



-p 

c 

a 

H 

& 
0) 

I§ 

<H 

o 

01 

m 
n 

(D 

m 

rl 

tn 
m 

s 



o 

Cm 



m 

0) 



K 



t^ 



OU 









U5 



Wl 



H "* -^ 



I>-T}<IOOSH<OHO<DO 
wSPc-t-iH'^CDWODWt-WtD 






^ S rH to O^ O to O W W UJ CD O W W 
HH^O(^iWHlHHtOr^^Ol-^r^ 



t-occpto«>wop-'<<«c<pca«co>tc 
• ••••••♦•••••• 



»o^lOCy>'^HOiHtDOO'*^OlO 
Wt-tOOlO«3r-t^WC>U5C-C-U5 
OOCDCOtOHOtOW-^COCViC^OJKi 



oooooooooooooo 

• ••••••••••••-? 

oooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 



bOOOtOl^OOWtOr-ICO'^r-jOOON 
0>W<DtOOOC3505Wt-HOSO>»0^ 
t--OH'*ODOU>'*l~-"*OtOU5-;J' 

Hi«wHHtogog<n2;tOrH212 

WWH'^'OWrHrH ^OJtOiHrH 



EH 



§ 



pa 



g 

o 

in 

0) 



:^:3 
o o 

7Z CO 



o --f a) 
mux: 
m CO o 






C <B 

O rH 

■P >1 IX, 

m U 

cd * 
m ^ iJ ^ 

-p <D a) +s 

01 73 a tn 

C? >j C5 O 
H C t-> » 



§ 

-P 

to TS .ia 

O C "O H 

^ :S 5 -p +5 

X n 3 tn tn 

O O O Q) 0) 

CrJ CO CO & S 




o 

(/D < 

O ce: 
QQ < 

UJ 

- ^ 
I- [iJ 

P 

CL 



z 
u 

I 
> 

O 

_i 
a. 

1 



o u. o 
§ O £^ 



uJ 



>- 



^ S 5 

u. V) ■") 
I- 

h- 

UJ 

X 

o 
< 

CO 

in 
< 



CO 
-I 



a: 

QC I- 
O (/5 

ca UJ 

5 




liiii 




I 





13 
O 



z 
I- o 
CO (- 
< CO 
UJ O 



I I I I I I I I I I i~'~r 



I I I I 



I I I I 



3 



I I I I 



I I I 



M I I ' I I 



o 



? 



o 

TO 



z 
o 

H 
W 

o 

(D 

So 
o 

2 D 

UJ < 
O u 

< oc 



O 1" 

uJ 

J q: 

z 



> 

o 

z 

uJ u 
I o 
h a 
u 
> S 

CQ u 



bj 

I 
I- 

>- 



3 
O 

u 



o 

z 

h- 

< 

I 

u 



-10- 



CQ 








PQ 


H 




to 


m 


05 


n 


iH 


a) 




iH 


• 


o 


t 




a 




3 




s 




•-» 


-»; 


• 


m 


m 


0) 


a 


(d 


o 


H 


to 


O 


U 




0) 




Oh 




T) 




Q> 




> 




O 




(H 


f-t 


P 


« 


Q 


+3 


V 


O 


C 


EH 


1 





C\i 



o 

CO 

05 



^ 



§ 
m 

U 






CL, O 



m 

w 

5) 

o 



01 

td 
o 



3 

o 



CL, O 



ri a 
u 

(0 



c 
o 

O to -P 

to -p td 
o 



CT> 



cd 

0) 

-P 01 
H «H 

Q) Q) 






to 
w 

00 



o 



t- 
o 
o 






O 

o> 

« 
00 
00 






lO 
lO 
CD 

00 



to 



CD 

to 



<D 






r-t 
O 

« 
lO 

to 



o> 

00 



tCCv:t~lO«CO>tOO>HOODO>C^O 
• ••••••••••••• 

OrHWWWtOtOOtOWWtOrHW 

lOOf-ICOCOt^W"*0»OrHC^W5'4' 
H0>tDC-WlOOO«OtD00Tj<0)C- 
W«D0005C3>tOOOTi<OOrH«CtOTl<0) 



Oi f-< W 



CW 



c\: 



^OOPtOHOCWtOUJOPWUJOO 

'sJ'^OOC^C-HOOtDCnOirHI/^OOu:) 
r-i iH iH iH 

^OOtOr^OO«DH^OIOWO 

O«*rH«pOOtO0000«D^tO 

C^t>-00C-»O0)O00«*tO«DtOW00 



51 w 



OrH»«Ope^t-Tj<WtDQOO^C^O 
• ••••••••••••• 

i-i rH H Cv2 r-i H iH 



W C- r)t 



tot^wr>-'*otow<Dtt>'^^ 

lO^eOfH^OOHOO^tDHlOO 

05^tDt~-c\J!Ooowwiotoe-r~oo 

rHtOlOHt~O>Wt'3<DW00iHC\itO 



^Tftoojt-eccroptotoo^tcO 

• ••••••••••••• 

OOWOOHOOHHi-l<NiOrH 



C- W 



- .rH«Dt0000>O"5j*Tl<^I>00t^ 
UlHtOI/5wU5WC~tD«300U:i«DC^ 
iHWC~-0>OOJWtOtOtOlO'*iH^ 



<yitot^w^wjtDto^o>ooto«ooc> 

• ••••••••••••• 

rHWCVitOWtOWCViHWtOCOtOiH 
H 

tDWOOt-OJOitOlO^OOtOOOOO 

t-tO0005t-3i«DOHO0it-OC0 



to H H 



H to to CN2 to i-t 



to C~ O r-( H 0> to 

Cv2C\2lO^tOn<tOtOCvi^Tl<00^ 



t^ W 00 t- W 00 



tO^0JtOQ0ONU300WOC~tDt~ 
C0CViOJ<Dt~WC-0JtOlO^^00rH 
00lOlOO>C\JOJa0tO»O'*00Wi-HtO 

HH'<l'CvJCv2 HtO'SliWWJrHr-l 



C^WtOtOlOCv200O200 
00tDeDlO'!l*'^O)^H 
QOtOCOO'^WTJ<lOOOC~l>- 



O 00 «D 00 ^ 
O) <M O 



U> 



C\2 iH 



OOtDiHO^C3>Tl<Ti4t-ioO>OOOC^ 
tOlOtOWt~lOCv2^CJO»n«OW'* 



:3:S 





fe^g^ 


a 


pq -p ® 





Si <-f 


+j 


^< bO U 


m 


^ cd 





cd fn ^ 


m 


03 OQ 



u 
o 

0) 

P 

to 
(U 

o 
o 



CO 

(D 
-P 
0} 
(D 
J3 



g 



•p 


» 


O. "O 


CQ 



u 

cd 


cd tS 


P3 


(X 




•55 


-P 


0} 


CO 


T) 


S ^4 


cd 


>^ 


(d 


W 


tc 


•-J »! 







m 






t>* 


-p 






r-f 









•H 


cd 






h 


^ 






OS 


-P 






•P 


es 






§ 


:3 






6 


to 






? 


a> 















^ 


^ 






•g 


'3 






CO 


•H 








t< 









<D 






m 


-p 




• 









-§ 


^ 


X! 




•«-s 


^ 


m 






T3 


•H 




cd 


3 


H 






r-l 


t 




.2 



X 


§ 




tlQ 


•t 


§ 




5 



t 


T3 







+> 


<D 




H 


3 


m 















•H 


V 






fc 


^4 




•V 




Cd 




M 


<M 






U 


<i-l 


m 

cd 




g 


? 


0) 






>» 


tn 







Cd 


Cd 




■P 


iH 


(D 




(P 


C 


u 




H 





ed 




,Q 




«H 




01 


-P 


r-{ 


• 




3 


(D 


3 


A 


^ 


» 


(0 


^ 






a> 





m 


-o 


tj 


•"-a 


XI 


§ 


S 







PQ 


cd 


"-i 


5 

r-t 







1 


Cd 


c 


-P 


> 


(D 





3 


cd 


^0 


5 


Si 


^1 


to 


CO 


m 





<D 


a 


a 


tM 


P 










<d 


to 


03 


CD 


•p 


1^ 


Fh 


(K 


CO 


(1) 


0) 


^ 


•a 


0^ 


p^ 


^ 


0) 

•p 


' 


1 


Cm 


•H 


<l 


m\ 


(D 


t§ 


m 


m 


m 




n 


m 


<D 


O) 


cd 


cd 


Si 


5 


iH 


iH 


EH 








1 




1 




1-1 




W 





-11- 



ing in between. In each of the three years there was little variation in the 
comparative standing of the areas as regards unemployTnent. The North End al- 
ways showed the greatest proportion, i^ile the South End, South Boston and 
East Boston, and Charlestown varied slightly as to position from year to year, 
but always showed higher percentages of unemployment than other areas. The 
Back Bay area in each of the three counts showed the lowest percentage of imem- 
ployment. 



T43LE 6. 



RANK OF HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS IN DNEMPLOYMENT 
1950, 1951, AND 1954 



(1) 



Health and 
Welfare Area 



January 
1954 



January 
1951 



April 
1950 



North End 


1 


1 


East Boston 


2 


S 


South Boston 


5 


4 


South End 


4 


Z 


Charlestown 


5 


6 


Roxbury 


6 


5 


Hyde Park 


7 


7 


Dorchester North 


8 


8 


Dorchester South 


9 


9 


?/est End 


10 


10 


Jamaica Plain 


11 


12 


West Roxbury 


12 


11 


Brighton 


15 


15 


Back Bay 


14 


14 



(1)- 1 - Highest percentage of unemployment, 
14 - Lowest percentage of xonemployment . 



1 

4 

5 

2 

5 

6 

9 

8 

10 

7 

11 

12 

15 

14 



Unemplo yment A mong Young People 

Young people who have recently left school and ^o have been unable to 
find employment since that time, are probably receiving more study and thought 
than any other group in the community, Figiures showing unemployment among young 
people by census tracts are not available, but those for the city as a urtiole 
show the general trends. 



-12- 



The high oercentage of boys and girls from 14 to 17 years of age ^o 

were classified as "not seeking employment", was, of course, due to the fact 

(1) 

that school attendance is the highest in this group. Not until the 18-year 

age group was reached did this distribution change. Then, as one would expect, 
the proportion of those seeking emplo3nnent became rapidly much greater, es- 
pecially among boys, (Table 7.) 



TABLE 7, 



EMPLOYABLE WORKERS AND THOSE NOT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, 
AMONG YOUNG PERSONS 14-20 YEARS OF AGE, BOSTON 



Age Groups 



Total Not Seeking Employment Employable Workers 

Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent 



14 


Years 


15 


n 


16 


ti 


17 


ti 


18 


IT 


19 


n 


20 


H 


21- 


.24 " 


Girls 


14 


Years 


15 


II 


16 


II 


17 


n 


18 


n 


19 


It 


20 


It 


21- 


■24 " 



6,595 
6,070 
6,502 
6,209 
6,128 
6,169 
6,026 
24,811 



6,407 
6,117 
6,474 
6,167 
6,570 
6,458 
6,600 
28,891 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 
100.0 



6,582 
6,027 
5,502 
4,256 
2,552 
1,522 
826 
2,570 



6,405 
6,075 
5,679 
4,254 
2,721 
1,970 
1,768 
9,810 



99.8 


15 


99.5 


45 


87.5 


800 


68.5 


1,955 


41.5 


^ f o9d 


21.4 


4,847 


15.7 


5,200 


10.4 


22,241 



99.9 
99.5 
87.7 
69.0 
41.4 
50.5 
26.8 
54.0 



4 
42 

795 
1,915 

5,849 

4,488 

4,852 

19,081 



.2 

.7 

12.7 

51.5 
58.7 
78.6 

86.5 
89.6 



.1 

.7 
12.5 
51.0 
58.6 
69.5 
75.2 
66.0 



(1) - The increase in attendance in Boston public high schools in the past six 
years is noted in the following figures: 



1929 


26,014 


1952 


1950 


27,595 


1955 


1951 


29,089 


1954 



29,466 
50,687 
51,759 



-15- 

TJnemployment was parituclarly high in the yoionger groups of those 
seeking work, and diminished r'lther steadily as the age increased. On the 
whole, \jnemplo5Tnent among the girls was slightly lower than among the boys, 
(Table 8, Chart II,) 

TABLE 8. EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF YOUNG PERSONS 14-20 YEARS OF iO^E, BOSTON 



Age Groups Employable Vvorkers Viiholly Unemployed 

Number Number Per cent 



15 1 

45 28 



14 Y 


ears 


15 


II 


16 


It 


17 


11 


18 


II 


19 


n 


20 


II 


21-24 


It 



Girls 



14 


Years 


15 


11 


16 


II 


17 


n 


18 


tt 


19 


n 


20 


It 


^1- 


■24 " 



800 582 72,8 

1,953 1,562 69.7 

5,596 2,173 60.4 

4,847 2,472 51,0 

5,200 2,286 44,0 

22,241 7,570 34.0 



4 2 — 

42 52 — 

795 615 77.4 

1,913 1,290 67.4 

5,849 2,166 56,5 

4,488 2,195 48.9 

4,832 1,912 53,6 

19,081 4,634 24.3 



* Percentage not computed where base figure is less than 100, 

Unemployment Among The Colored 

There has been conjecture as to the comDarative degree of unemoloy- 
ment among white and colored persons. The 1934 Census of unemployment fur- 
nished information on this point. Two sets of comparable figures, neither of 
which was altogether satisfactory, were available. First, those which showed 
the percentage of unemployment among white and color-^d nersons in the city as 



-14- 



■a whole; and second, those which showed it in a group of census tracts in which 
colored residents were numerous. 

There are nine census tracts in Boston having a colored population of 
more than 500, Figures for these tracts and for the city as a whole are given 
in the following tables. 

Unemployment among colored persons was higher than it was among white 
persons for Boston as a whole, being 55,9 per cent in the former, and 25,9 per 
cent in the latter instance. 



TABLE 9. 



UNEMPLOIMENT AMONG RACIAL GROUPS IN BOSTON 
JANUARY 2, 1954 

Figures from Massachusetts Census of Unemployment 



Racial 
GrouDS 


Employable 


Persons 


Persons 
Wholly Ur. employed 




Number 


Per cent 


Number 


Per cent 


White 

Colored 

Other 


527,205 

9,965 

846 


100.0 
100.0 
100.0 


84,754 

5,576 

182 


25.9 
55,9 
21.5 



In the nine census tracts already mentioned, unemployment among the 
colored residents was generally higher than among the white residents, althoiigh 
in two instances - census tracts R-1 and R-5 - the reverse was true, (Table 10.) 
UnemDloynent among colored women was greater than it was among the men in six of 
the nine tracts, and was also greater than it was among white women in the same 
number of instances, 

DELINQUENCY 

Census tract statistics are heir to ills which are common to all 
statistics. They must, accordingly, be interpreted with discrimination. Great 
pr'^caution must be taken when numbers are small. This difficulty is met parti- 
cularly in the matter of delinquency figures, where in any one tract the numbers 
are small, and are, accordingly, subject to wide statistical fluctuations. For 



-15- 



to 



^ If 
o c 

<c, 0) 

K a 
o 

1=) a 

to a 

o & 

w ^ 
s o 

M 

(D 

o « 
w « 

Q. to 

3 
p ^ 

2 « 
to 
n 

0) 

a 



o 

o 
o 



o 

Si 
Q 









e 
o 

tn 

0) 

-1 

t30 
•H 



'O 



0)1 



D-, 'r-l 



(U 



0) 



a>! 



CM Q) 

3H 



g 



o 

a 03 

<U Pi 



to 


r-i 


■^ 


U5 


to 


tc 


rH 


00 


lO 

9 


to 


• 


• 

iH 


CD 


• 

lO 


to 


lO 

'1' 


r-i 


to 


00 

to 




in 

• 

to 


to 

• 
CO 

to 


• 


• 

o 


CO 

• 

o 


rH 

• 
O 


• 


• 

00 


to 

• 

o 

lO 


to 

• 
lO 

in 


• 


c 

• 
lO 


to 

• 

o 

to 


o 

• 


• 
to 


• 

lO 

to 


iO 

• 

to 

tfj 


• 
to 

C\i 


• 

o 

to 


Cvi 

• 
lO 

to 


« 

to 


• 


CD 

• 
lO 


IT, 

• 

o 


• 
to 


• 
to 


a. 

• 

to 


cv 

• 

en 


• 
Cvi 

to 


to 

• 


J8 

r-i 

• 
—I 


to 
•>* 
to 


r-i 


iH 


H 


CO 


CO 

o 

H 


to 


c^ 


05 
Cvi 



lO 
rH 
CD 






C-i 

to 



lO 
iH 
O 



o 


Oi 


in 


lO 


cv: 


C\i 


o> 


H 


00 


o> 


t- 


■* 


00 


-^ 


CNi 


CO 


00 


lO 


to 


to 


a. 


to 


to 


OJ 


in 


to 


to 

• 


to 


Oi 


rH 



to 
to 



o 



•3 

o 

H 



to 

rH 

to 



05 

to 



CO 

lO 



to 
to 

00 



H 

to 



to 



CO 



to 

02 



CO 

to 



to 



to 
en 



o> 



to 

C\i 
C\2 



lO 



rH 

to 



05 



to 



C\2 
O 



t<^ 

to 



8 



en 

to 



CO 



lO 

to 
t-i 



to 

lO 

C^2 



05 

to 



to 

to 



CO 

en 



r-i 



to 
to 

C\i 



Cvi 



cn 

to 



00 

C\2 
00 



00 

to 



C\.' 

o 

H 






£35 

to 



O 

to 



to 



lO 



C\i 



Oi 



CO 
(O 



m 

to 



CO 

oo 



r-i 

to 



O 
O 
lO 



to 

CO 



to 


0> 


to 


Cvi 


to 


•^ 



rH 


OJ 


OJ 


to 


CVi 


to 


■<t 


o 


Ui 


C^ 


00 


to 


en 


'S' 


ri 



^ 



I/} 
I 



CJ 

I 

h3 



to 



"=/ 


Kj 


Ql 


1 


1 


ci 


J. 


>-3 


t3 


cy 



-16- 

eacample, a tract may have 500 children between the ages of 7 and 16. In one 
year 10 juvenile delinquents would give it a delinquency rate of 20 per 1000 
juvenile population. In the next year there might be 20 delinquents, <vhich 
would cause its rate to jump to 40 - a rise probably out of all proportion in 
apparent importance to the problems involved. The difficulty of small numbers 
can be overcome in two ways: emnual figures can be collected for larger dis- 
dricts, for example, health and welfare areas; or figures for census tracts 
can be averaged over a period of time. Either process produces larger numbers 
which are more stable. Rates for individual census tracts for any one year, 
when numbers are small, should be regarded only as danger signals indicating 
the need for further and more intensive study. 

In 1950 the Massachusetts Probation Commission instituted a comprehen- 
sive stfitistical system which yielded, among other things, counts by census 
tracts of Boston's delinquents from 7-16 (Juvenile Delinquents), and from 
17 - 20 years of age. The older group showed a delinquency rate far higher than 
that of the juvenile group, and seemed, therefore, to present the greater pro- 
blem of the two. Unfortunately, curtailment in the office of the Probation Com- 
mission resulted in the abolition of the compilation of statistics by census 
tracts of the older group. It is to be hoped that it can be restored in the 
near future, both because the problems which the older group present are of major 
importance, and, as already described, because continuity is a factor of prime 
importance in this method of recording. Since no information is available for 
the older group which has not already been published, no figures are given here. 
Fortunately, statistics for juvenile delinquents are available for four years. 

The number of juvenile delinquents has not varied greatly in the city 
as a whole in any one of the four years for which figures are available, (Table 
11, Chart III, Map V,) Generally speaking, the congested districts - Charles- 
town, East Boston, the North End, South Boston, the South End, and the West End - 



-17- 






en 



g 

g a 

?! O 

crcu m 
a u 

^ <n a) 

iH O <C 
® M 

O ?D 
0) O pH 
(H iH I 
•H t- 

a ^^ 

0) 0) 

§^ 



^ 



^1 TD 

CC O 

o 

^ (D 



to 

05 



to 
+> 

ci 

0} 



0) 

Q 

a> 

•H 
fl 

> 

3 

o 

•i 



to 

CD 



fH 

to 

Oi 



lO 
05 



to 



to 



5 u 
•H as 
+> <D 

cd >-) 

3 to 
P.rH 
O I 



» 



9 





0) 




OJ 


-a 


^ 




0) 


JS 


u 


-p 


(0 


rH 


v. 


Cj 


r-< 


<D 


0) 


K 


'^ 



to 

« 
05 



ov 



a. 



w 



o 






to 
to 



to 



o 

to 
in 



to 

« 
CD 
Cv2 



•p 

tot 

03 



lOOl005'*C^aC.tOC\iCVitOtDl«0» 

tOWCDWt-C^O)f-lrH«D«DC^tOtO 
HHCJrH to r-H-^HCviWin 



a- o> i-i 00 ":> o» iH OS OS o> 0". •«}> to a. 

• ••••••••••••• 

r-IOiLOt»JlOt^(HO>tOKJ«DCViQOl« 



a. o>^oiot^osiotD<ooO'<*'too 

• • •••••••••••• 

(Ha3V/5OtD'#C~05>'3tOWC--t^U3 
rH WH to lOHWWtO 



'*i-lt^tD^JD<-itOt-01HVOlO'<S< 
• ••••••••••••• 

W'*Ot.J0000C0(H00O^C-0>00 
WrHt-'JrH (O t-t^WWtOlfi 



05OHOWU5CC/00'>!»-WWWWilO 

O5>5}<tO"<*O>O5W^aDtDiHlO00a0 
iHiHtOH tQiHrHWHtOWtO 



^'*HrHC00>C\iO>0>HtCtO00tO 
W^-•*05^-TJ^tO«DlOlOr^lOtO•^ 
rHC^i -^ iHCvitOrHiH 



•^ ^ to rH 0> 
W t- •««' H 00 



•<l't0HU300tOU3O> 
^COWTjicOtDtOtO 
W Oi W iH W 



loiObOjDOcoifipigppO'* 



Ti< o e»- 



w 



- - - — _ , lO C~- <D 
lD^C-OiC^OOWO<D 

■^ w to w w w 



o •* <o -^ o 

^ O 03 05 t>'j 
t-t (H W 



Q0f-lt<3tOtOH00'*lO 
to CD t>- O ^ 'J 05 I>- to to to 
H^ HrHWtOiHH 



O«0t-0000HtOHtOU5iOt-00lO 
(HWW'S'iHlOtDOOCOtOco'^C-rH 

0'<3<tDOr-icoioai«oot-05'*aj 



*% v^ a^ Vk •« 



W t>- lO 


North kJl 
South 14 


rH 


LO 


to 

5 


■^ 


CO rH 
rH rH 

a 


10 


to 




i 


M U 


§ 




(d 

: — 1 











1^ 


o 


<0 0) 


-P 


A4 Ou -O 


to 


■o 




XI 


!>> C -P 

«j o <n 


p -p 


CO 


^ 




rS 





s 


TJ 


X 


to m 





cd 


a 


^m 


w 


.g 





CD -p a; 


0) O 


CQ 


a. 









« 


^ --■ 


4: ^ 






•H 


j:: 


3 jb 


J3 






a: Qo ^1 





P' 


Q) 


CC 


-p 


43 HJ 


■P 


-p 


-p 


O -H cS 


u u 


tfi 


T3 


e 


^. 


T< 3 


3 


to 


CO 


<a u ^ 





0" 


>> 


d 











Q) 


Q} 


m m o 


Q 


W 


3: 


•-? 


B 


ft; w 


W 


s. 


S 



o 

f- 

C/D 



UJ 

< 

O 
CO 

< 

UJ 

> 



bj r^ 

'Z. cc 

^^ _l =5 o\ 

UJ UJ Q- - 

S ^ 7 :;; 

— X (3s 

-J Id z - 

UJ < UJ 

Q ui ^ 



id 03 O 



> 



O 

o 
o 

cc 

LiJ 
Q. 



< 
CC 



o 
o 




kVWWWWWV 



^Vxx^^ 



i 



v\\\\n 




^v-- . - ■ ■ ■ : 



K ^^"^'- 



#^ 



^^ 



■^^ 



^ I UJ X 

m CC I- h- 

-^ o 2 ^ 

JS- Q !±^ O 



^^^^1 



[^j^; 




\'\V^^^\^\\<\ \';s:^ct:<:^ 



>^:- \:- ->x-V-^^': A>^H 



i 



^ 



WWWV 



|^|^^^^^:: '. 



K^^^x^^VVV^^VV ^^^^ 



r^:^^ 



^^^^^ 



^^^^^^ 



l\^:-'. ,. '■■'v^^NK--'.| 



E 



^:^^cHHE^HHa 



^ 



i 



^^^^ssss^^■^^ ^<vx< cx cv; :^^^^v^^<^<^^ cx 



k^<.<.-\^^<.^^-^-^^^^^ 



f^^^^^^-^^' ' 



VVVVVVVV' 



rTV 



t 



k\\\\\\Xxx\\\x\ x\\\\\\\\\\\V 



^-^^^^ ^^^^^^^:^^^S^^ 



k\\\\\\\\\^\\V\\\^^^^ 



I I I I 



"^^^s^^^^^^ 



I I I I 



I- o 



X<x<x^^<x^^^^^ 



,, , , AX^^.^^^^^^'X-X^^^^^ 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



^ 



o 



o 



o 



o 

<r5 



r3 






UJ 

a 
< 






to 

^ uJ 
- ^ 



Z 

o 

(0 

o 

m 

6 

z 



o 
o 
w 

o 



z 
o 

1- 

>- 

CD O 

z 

UJ U 

1 13 
I- tr 



ffl 



u 



ui I 

5^ 
a > 

UJ ID 

(t 

a a 
u 
h 

3 

y 



o 

z 

h 

cr: 
< 

I 
O 



^x. 




-18- 

•show the highest Dronortion of delinquency. There is surprisingly little change 
between the comparative rankings of the different areas from year to year. One 
may have a delinquency rate which is a little lower in any one year, but by and 
large, the delinquency rates in each have stayed at a fairly constant level, 

(1) 

TABLE 12. RAM OF HEALTH AND ?/ELFARE AREAS IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 

Health and 

Welfare Area 1954 195? 1 952 1951 

West End 1 1 
North End -22 

East Boston S 5 

Charlestown 4 5 

South End 5 4 

South Boston 6 6 

Back Bay 7 8 

Roxbury 8 7 

Dorchester North 9 9 

Brighton 10 10 

Jamaica Plain 11 11 

Hyde Park 12 12 

Dorchester South IS 15 

West Roxbury 14 14 

(1) - 1 - Highest delinquency r^te. 
14 - Lowest delinquency rate. 

The number of juvenile delinquents for the last two years is consider- 
ably less than for the first two years - an encouraging sign, perhaps, in tliese 
days when the devastating effects of the depression are thought to be underitining 
morale at every point, 

HEALTH 

From the first, the Boston Health Department has been one of the organ- 
izations most closely concerned with the conoilation of statistics by census 
tracts, for through its good offices the Federal Census *"ipures of 1950 were ob- 
tained and the first street list was published. Each year it compiles statis- 
tics for general and infant mortality and for tuberculosis. 



1 


2 


2 


5 


3 


1 


5 


5 


4 


U 


6 


4 


7 


6 


8 


7 


10 


10 


9 


9 


11 


8 


14 


12 


12 


15 


15 


14 



V) 



-19- 



Infant Mortality 

Infant mortality rates are the ratio of the number of denths of in- 
fants under one year to the n\imber of births, exclusive of still births, in a 
calendar year. Since the number of deaths in any one census tract In any one 
year is usually small, infant mortality rates by census tracts are subject to 
the TDitfalls already outlined in the section on juvenile delinquency. The same 
precautions must, therefore, be taken in their interpretation as with deliu- 
quency rates by census tracts. Annual figures for health and welfare areas, an< 
rates based on the average number of cases in four years for each census tract, 
are used in these considerations of infant mortality. 

The general trend of the infant mortality rate for the city and the 
state as a whole for the five-year period, 1950-1S34, was downward. 



Infant Mortality Rates: 


Mas 


sachusetts 


Boston 


1950 




60.3 


66.6 


1931 




54,8 


59.4 


1952 




52.9 


57.5 


1935 




52.0 


58.9 


1934 




49,2 


54.8*- 



* Includes non-residents. Rate exclusive of non-residents 
would probably be slightly lower. 



Infant mortality rates in the different health and welfare areas fluc- 
tuated more than did those of unemployment and delinquency. It has already been 
shown that certain areas maintain a fairly steady relative rank as regards these 
other factors, A few areas show a certain degree of consistency in their rank 
year by year,- Charlestown, East Boston, and the South End, usually having high 
rates, and Jamaica Plain, Dorchester South, and "est Roxbury having low rates; 
but otherwise the districts fluctuate considerably from year to year. (Table 
13, Chsrt IV, Table 14.) 



-20- 



►J 
m 



o 






to 

i-H 

M 



U 
OQ 
O 

o 
o 



0) 

D 

a> 

cd 
« 

xi 
-P 



CQ 

Xi 
-PI 

0)' 

O 

O 
t-l 

.£5 



z 



^1 T3 

c^ O 

I 0) 

■* a. 

to 



to 



to 



O 

f-l 



to 

05 



to 



to 



o 
to 



■ to 
u 

•H 

o 

u 

ID 



fe: 



•a 



x; 
•p 



w 



to 
to 

C3^ 



K. 

f-t 



to 



o 

05 






00 

o 



O 



00' 
lO 



OS 
lO 



1 

to 



r— 



to 
m 






05 



03 

• 
C\2 



05 

o 
to 






00 

»■ 



-P 



U-J U-J t-- <o O OO U3 Cvi t^ <' ^; iH 00 w 

■«*OlOOi05tDt^00C\i'^'<fKJ00«) 
tDlOC0U2*d<tD^^«DtDt~-C~'^'* 



O (H CO 



^ 



to Ni vl< 05 tu »-l lO t.3 C vi< C- 
• •••••••••••• 

OC\ilOtOOlOOrHC\iOOlOtOOJ 
tDODlOrttD^tOinc^lOt-cOtO 



CvirHO^f-IOCrHcOOCW^jCtU 

toiotDOt^e--cviwa)Oi05ioix(Cvi 

to KJ to to ^ lO 1/3 US to CC t> to lO VO 



rH 00 UO CJ rH O O ^- W t- O) C^ u-5 CTs 
• ••••••••••♦«• 

00'*Cvia)OlOKJOO>05WO>02 
OOlOrHlC-^t>lO'a<COlOtOOCV'l' 



00 Vf 00 lO rH to %<• »-3 00 CO C<i to "-T 00 

totocvtOj-g^ajc^toO^oicotooo 

tOlOOOeO'OC-tO'^OOtOCDCO'^'* 



'St<C>i05'<J'PJaOO>tDf-l'«l'tOr-)'#0 
rH>0 K^JOlOtDr-'tOWKJtOtDOJtO 
r-i iH 



W'^Tj'lOQOON^JrHt^-tOtOtO'^tO 
C\2tOtOWlOC-CV2'»:|<(HtOOO^W'* 



t^00Wt^f-<<D^Wt-00tO00lOlO 
CvJ'3<lOOtOa3CitOtOiHt-U^rHtO 



w OS lo to <a lO t- 

CJ u:) •># lO (X> O rH 
r-) iH 



Ol O O lO to 05 O 

to '* Tjt O r- rH to 



rJtlOrHiHWtO^rHHt-HtOCOlO 
OtC>(>-'X>CVCvirHr-<(-i-=J'COH<>~lO 
tOQ0^00r-<f-i<*I>-'3'CDO00tOt~- 



OOt-lOtOO^E^Wt-COtOr-frH'^C^ 
■<* to !-■ t<.i IfJ W •><}< CO to LfJ l»; t<J r-H H 
tOO)UjOC\iCVi'*C~'«3<OiOCD'^00 
«s •« a^ »• A 

02 r-i r-i r-i r-* 



C~"*'^0^C-00t0t\if-|l0tDt-O05 
lO'^lrt'^tOCVitOJOtDC^OOOT'^tO 

too)'*oc>iCNi'<j't-'i'o;0!>-^t^ 

*^ ^ •% fV 9\ 

C\i rH H i-i r-i 



^ o -* 



03l/3tOtp ^^ -« w , ww-ws^ 

w^"'^oe^tHU3n;j03cot~-iDoa> 



lf> O to t- CD CD 

»M ^- ^- >_^ V- r-i -* t-j 03 CO t~- "3 O CJ5 

tOOlOC\iWKjrJ<C0^r-li-(0D-^I> 



W 



o o 

a CO 

% u u 

o (D a> 

>, fl P -P 4 

oj O ro (ft c; 

A1 bo M 
crt ^1 



CV H 



c o 
u u 
o o 



c « 

O i-l 

P M O. "O 

o oi ai w 



03 Ou q 

p o ' 

tn 'CI 



C 

o 
-p 
en 73 

3 js x: 



x: x: 
^ p -p 

ti « 3 ? 

o o o o 



o 



p -p 



(D 



coraot^owwt-sa fccocoB: 



0< 





U 




•H 




f-( 




^ 




;:! 




P. 




Cw 




o 


» 


Q) 


-p 


B 


c 


•H 


(DP 


S 




P>-P 


P. 


(3 


a 


0) 


(DrH 


OXi 




to 


•^ 


r-l 


-p 


•H 


fH 


n: 


a) 


> 


a; 


«J 


K 






-p 


»-i 


o 


o 


c 


p> 




tn <^ 


c t<; 


CO 


C55 




r-i 


B 




o 


U 


^ 


O 


tM t-, 


in 


OJ 


<D 


a^ 




^ 


t>0 tlO 


'H 


•H 


^f^ 



;?w 



o 

I— 

(/^ C/5 CO 

o 2 f 

< CD 

21 LJ Ld 

— q: > CO 

t ^ o 7 

^ ^ o I 

< 09 2 o 
I— ro 

Q: E S £^ 



< 

LlJ c/d 

X LJ 

I 



CL 



^^^^^v^' . 



f^'^'^^ 






r^ 



^~ 



k\^\\v\v\,v^v.v^:v^ 



i.:.^ 



A\\V\\V'v\\\\\\'^\\V'\' 



^r^^'^y:^ 



^^^'<^^- 



l-W'VNNWw'wN 



v\\\\\\\\\\\X\\-. 



KV\V^:VVV\\^V\VV\\.V\VV\V\\VV^\\V\\V 



[' ' 



X 



Wwwv^ww- 



? 



r : ■; , , , 



s\\\ S\ s 



i 



f^"^ 



■• V ' A V V 'v \ V> ^ V >■ 



^SS^SSS 



>■ 
> o 



ui y 

Q a. 

> < 

< 

< < 






5_ y 



tU 



^^^:iizr:;:zii:i 



:^5S^^^?5^ 



^\^:>>-\\\' 



[ 



x<<i<^'\<;^^^^^'\Kv.'\xssx^^^c^t:^ 



.. 



T 



■- - ■ ■ j 



\'.VV'v'>'-VVV'-V\VVV<^VVVVVV^\\^V ' .\V'-'-V'-. v- 



[ • .' .■ . , ■. . 






e: 



.^S (0 



^N\'^- 



s 



i 



I ■■'■ -. . . . > ■. ■.. ... .. -^ — 



u 



^ 



■A ' - ' ■'.'- 



1 ;" '■— ^•-- 



E 




^ 



, V V V V VV V ■ 



P=I= 



I I M I i~r 



K\\V;\V.\\\\V 



. 



T~ I I I I r~r^ 



-1-^ 



I I I 



MM 



I I I I 



A^XWAXW 



I I I I -T-TT 



^ -1- 

in (- 

S o 

a: 1/1 



z 
o 

I- 
I 

(S 

q: 

03 

a: 

^ (^ 

o O 

Q:: Z 

o 

ex 

I 

I- Q 
ec Z 

O LJ 

z 



ae. 
X 

o 

Of 



X < 



<Q 



< ID 



X 

I- o 

D Z 
O U 

in 



in (O 



<n 

"I 



o 



5^ 



01 



< 

O tfJ 

u 

_i o: 

u a 

z 

'J z 
^1 

o !i 

I- a 

V) 

> 

n u 

z 

UJ UJ 

1 O 

I- a. 

u 

^E 

Q UJ 

U I 

o: I- 
< 

Q. > 

UJ (Q 

Q: 

a Q 
u 

(- 

D 

o 



o 

z 

I- 

< 
I 
u 



-21- 

(1) 
TABLE 14 RANK OF HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS IN INFANT MORTALITY 

1950-1935 



Health and 

Welfare Area 1955 1952 1951 195C 

Charles town 

South End 
Roxbury 
West End 
East Boston 
Brighton 
South Boston 
Dorchester North 
North End 
Jamaica Plain 
Dorchester South 
Back Bay- 
Hyde Park 
West Roxbury 



1 


5 


1 


5 


2 


8 


4 


2 


S 


2 


7 


8 


4 


6 


14 


15 


5 


7 


5 


5 


6 


14 


10 


9 


7 


1 


6 


1 


8 


5 


9 


6 


9 


15 


2 


4 


10 


10 


12 


12 


11 


12 


11 


10 


12 


4 


5 


7 


15 


11 


8 


14 


14 


9 


IS 


11 



(1> - 1 - Highest infant mortality rate, 
14 - Lowest infant mortality rate. 

In the foiir-year period, Charlestown, South Boston, and the South End 
had the highest infant mortality rates for health and welfare areas; while the 
following census tracts had the highest rates among the smaller districts. 
(Map VI,) 

Census Tract Health and Welfare Area Infant Mortality Rate 



L-5 


South End 


152.6 


C-1 


Charlestown 


158,2 


L-2 


South End 


102,7 


M-2 


South Boston 


100.0 


ea-5 


South Boston 


100.0 



It seems to be an almost impossible task exactly to determine the 
causes which create high or low infant mortality rates. After the publication 
of the infant mortality statistics for 1950 and 1931, such interest was aroused 



-22- 

over the wide difference in the rates for Charlestoim and the West End - two 
crowded tenement house districts - that a study involving both medical and 
social factors was made under tiie auspices of a conmittee of the Boston Health 
League, The study failed to isolate any one single fact or group of facts as 
the primaiy cause in the differing rates, but pointed toward the need for 
strengthening the orgamized medical facilities in Charlestown, 

Tuberculosis 

The statistics for tuberculosis cover two aspects of the problem,- the 
number of new cases reported in the course of the year, and the number of deaths. 

Since tuberculosis rates are worked out on a basis of one case to every 
100,000 population, and since the number either of new cases or deaths in a year 
is not very great, even in any one health and welfare area, wide fluctuations 
occur. Hence, only the rates based on the average number of cases for the four- 
year period for health and welfare areas are used here. Persons concerned with 
the problems of tuberculosis will, of course, want to study the more detailed 
figtures which, however, because of the difficulties already outlined, should be 
used only in special research. 

The point of greatest significance in this consideration of tuberculo- 
sis is the fact that the South End area showed such extraordinarily high rates 
both for new cases and deaths. Neither is the result of a large momber in any 
one year, but of a rather continuously large number in each of the four years, 
(Table 15, Chart V.) 

1950 1951 1952 1955 

New Cases 240 214 184 157 

Deaths 94 88 80 80 



TABLE 15. 



-ZZt 



TUBERCULOSIS IN BOSTON BY HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 



AVERAGE FOR FOUR YEARS, 1930 - 19b4 











(2) 




Health and 


Total (1) 
Porrulation 




Tuberculo 


sis 




Welfare Area 


New 


Cases 


Deatl 
Number 


IS 




Number 


Rate 


Rate 


Boston 


774.470 


4,545 


146.7 


1.809 


58.0 


Back Bay 


56,191 


182 


125.0 


50 


54.5 


Brighton 


54,965 


230 


104.6 


79 


35.9 


Charlestown 


50,232 


208 


172.0 


93 


76.9 


Dorchester North 


122,093 


550 


112,6 


212 


45.4 


Dorchester South 


78,128 


274 


87.6 


99 


31.6 


East Boston 


62,565 


5S4 


155.8 


114 


45.6 


Hyde Park 


29,502 


107 


90.6 


39 


33,0 


Jamaica Plain 


43,451 


177 


101.8 


85 


47.7 


North End 


25,411 


150 


160.1 


52 


55.5 


Roxbury 


104,518 


717 


171.5 


506 


75.5 


South Boston 


57,562 


587 


168.6 


196 


85.4 


South End 


55,295 


795 


559.4 


342 


154.6 


West End 


28,687 


172 


149.0 


60 


52.2 


"•est Roxbury 


50,272 


229 


115.8 


83 


41.2 



(1) - Plates based on 1934 enumeration of population, 

(2) - Figures from the Boston Health Department. 

RELIEF AND FAIJILY SERVICE 



One section of "Social Statistics by Census Tracts in Boston" was de- 
voted to a discussion of the distribution throughout the city of the cases of 
the Department of Public Welfare, and three private family service agencies, - 
the Boston Provident Association, the Family Welfare Society, and the Jewish 
Family Welfare Association. Unfortunately, comparable material is not available 
at this time as the earlier tabulations were the result of a special exDeriment, 

In the interim, however, the Family Welfare Society has instituted 
the collection of statistics by census tracts and has just made availabe 
figures for its last operating year; and the Department of Public Welfare is 



I 



< 

u 

z 



in 

I 

< 

Q 



ssssss 



c^www 



SVvVsWWVvV 



kVVV\W\S> 



o 




en 


z 

O 




h- 




< 


s 




CO 


co 






O 

CO 


5 


< 

Ld 


D 
Q. 

o 






UJ 


rr 


"st 


2 


o 


^ 


Q. 


CO 


^^™ 


cs 


_i 


o 


G\ 


CO 


C/D 


LU 


o 

n 


1 


CO 


LU 
CO 


ao 


o 




O 


< 




o 


cj 


-J 


U 






OS 


Z) 




CC 






LJ 

7' 


< 

LU 

T 


LU 
CL 




LU 






LiJ 




OQ 




> 


h 




3 




CO 


< 
rr 




h- 











tcvwwwwv 



wwwww^ 



g^\\\\s\> 



k\\\\\VCvV\\ 



on 

UJ 

1- X 

</^ h- 
o 



UJ V 

>- < 



< 

<< 

< Q. 



X 

o 

CO 

5o 

ck; Z 
o 

Q 

OH 






z 

I- e 

< u^ 

lU O 
CO 



>^^>NSJ^^nV»^C^ 



VvVvWvVvVVg^ 



^v\\v\\v^^^x\\s^v\\^^^ 



vwxv^xwwwwvo 



S\\\\VVX\\VsVvVsNVV 



k\^^\^\\^^^\^x\^^x\\\\\\\\vv\^x\v^^\^^^ 



arm: 



I I I 



3 L 



I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 



I I I I 






u 



X 
O UJ 



— ' ir\ 



f) 



>- 

ID 
CD 
X 
O 



lU 



I? 

(J 



X 
I- Q 

r> z 
o UJ 
in 



-24- 

• incorporating the method into its newly reorganized record system* In the not 
far distant futtire; therefore, statistics comparable to those of delinquency 
and health will be available for this field. 

Table 16 correlates the number of major service cases with the num- 
ber of families in the area. While the proportion of families served in every 
area is small, it is considerably greater in some areas than in others. The 
large number of cases in Roxbury, <:4 per cent of the total case load, becomes of 
less relative importance when due recognition is given to the population of the 
area. 



TABLE 16. RATIO OF MAJOR SERVICE CASES OF FAMILI WELFARE SOCIETY 

TO POPULATION 



(1) 

Health and 


(2) 

Families 


Family Welfare Society 
Cases 


Welfare Area 


Per cent 
Number of Families 


(Exclusive of South) 
Boston { End Area ) 


178.747 


3.080 1.7 



Hyde Park 
Roxbury 
Charles town 
North End 
South Boston 
Jamaica Plain 
East Boston 
Brighton 
Back Bay 
West End 
West Roxbury 
Dorchester South 
Dorchester North 



6,450 
26,891 

7,135 

5,230 
13,714 
11,058 
13,675 
15,774 
11,824 

7,687 
U,906 
17,855 
29,548 



223 


5.5 


865 


3.2 


192 


2.7 


121 


2.5 


508 


2.2 


229 


2.1 


229 


1.7 


207 


1.5 


147 


1.2 


91 


1.2 


123 


1.0 


124 


.7 


225 


.8 



(1) - Figures for the South End, in which there were 554 cases, are omitted from 

this table as truly comparable figures cannot be obtained because of the 
presence of large numbers of rooming houses. For a full discussion of this 
point see "Social Statistics in Boston", 1933, p,23, 

(2) - Figures from Massachusetts Census of Unemployment. 



A study of these figures raises many questions. Is the greater demand 



-25- 

for service in some districts the result of greater need? Or is it the result 
of special emergencies which may be present one year and absent the next? Is 
the demand less in some districts because of greater activities of other family 
service agencies? Or do the working agreements between all agencies, both 
public and private, demand different types of service in the different areas? 
Would more detailed study of other neighborhood problems result in a different 
division of the load? 

CONCLUSIONS 

This report sujmnarizes the statistics by census tracts for Boston 
now available from all sources. From the use which has already been made of 
them, it is believed that they will be an essential adjunct, especially as 
their scope becomes widened, to program building both of individual agencies 
and of neighborhoods. It is to be hoped, therefore, that more and more those 
agencies which operate on a city-wide basis - hospitals, health agencies, 
character building agencies, children's agencies, as well as other family ser- 
vice and relief agencies,- will build this method into their record keeping 
in order that their experience may thus be pooled for this common interpreta- 
tion of problems and needs. 



APPENDIX 



BOUNDARIES OF HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS IN BOSTON 



-27- 



BODNDARIES OF HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS IN BOSTON 



HEALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 
Back Bay 



Brighton 



Charlestown 



Dorchester North 



Dorchester South 



CENSUS TRACTS 

J-5, J-4, J-5 
K-5, K-4, K-5, 
S-1 



Y-1, Y-2, Y-Z 
Y-4, Y-5 



L/""X^ \j^f^^ \^"%jf 

D-l, D-2, D-5, 

D-4, E-1, E-2 

P-2, P-5, P-4, 

P-5, P-6, Q-5, 

T-1, T-2, T-3, 

T-4, T-5, T-6, 

T-7, T-8, T-9, 
T-10, X-1 



X-2, X-5, X-4, 
X-5, X-6 



BOUNDARIES 

Charles River, Berkeley, 
Back Sts., Embankment Rd,, 
Beacon, Arlington, Provi- 
dence, Berkeley, Stanhope 
Sts., Trinity Place, 
Stuart, Dartmouth Sts,, 
N. y. N. H. & H. track, 
Station, Parker, Conant 
Sts,, Huntington, Longwood 
Aves,, Muddy River, St, 
Mary's, Ashby Sts, 

Charles River, Ashby St,, 
Commonwealth Ave,, City 
Line 

Mystic River, City Line, 
Boston Harbor, Charles 
River, City Line 

Old Harbor, Freeport St,, 
Old Colony Parkway, Pope's 
Hill St,, Neponset Ave,, 
King St,, Dorchester, 
Centre Aves., Centre St,, 
Codman Sq,, Talbot Ave,, 
Blue Hill Ave., Huckins, 
Dennis, Langdon, George, 
Magazine Sts,, Norfolk 
Ave,, N. Y, N. P, & H, 
track, Southampton, 
Ellery, Boston, Ralston 
Sts,, Dorchester, Crescent 
Aves,, Dorchester Raoid 
Transit, 191^5 V^ard Line 

Talbot Ave., Centre St,, 
Centre, Dorchester Aves,, 
King St,, NeDonset Ave,, 
PoDe's Hill St,, Old 
Colony parkway, Freeport 
St,, Neponset River, Mat- 
tokeeset. River Sts,, Randolph 
Rd, Ku^by Rd,, Oakland, 
Harvard Sts, 



-28- 



HKALTH AND WELFARE AREAS 



East Boston 



Hyde Park 



CENSUS TRACTS 

A-1, A-2, A-5, 
A-4, A-5, A-6, 
B-1, B-2, B-3, 
B-4, B-6 

Z-1, Z-2 



Jamaica Plain 



V-5, V-4, V-5, 
V-6, W-1, W-2 



North End 



F-1, F-2, F-5, 
F-4, r-5, F-6 



Roxbury 



R-1, R-2, R-5, 
Q-2, Q-5, Q-4, 
U-1, U-2, D-5, 
U-4, U-5, U-6, 



BOUNDARIES 

Chelsea Creek, Belle 
Isle Inlet, Boston 
Harbor, 



Old Hyde Park Line, 
Turtle Pond Rd,, Wash- 
ington, Beech Sts,, 
Clarendon Ave,, Haute- 
ville. Poplar, Dale, 
Burley Sts,, MetroDoli- 
tan Ave,, Mansur St,, 
Grew Ave,, Cliff mont, 
Canterbury Sts,, Hyde 
Park Ave,, Richards Ave,, 
Newbem, Wilmot, Ash- 
land Sts,, Randolph Rd,, 
Oakland St,, Rugby, 
Randolph Rds., River, 
Mattakeeset Sts., Nenon- 
set River, City Line 

Pond Rd,, Jamaicaway, 
Castleton St,, South 
Huntington Ave,, Floyd, 
Cranford, Heath, Day, 
Bynner, Creighton, 
Centre Sts,, N, y, N. H, 
& H, track, Atherton, 
Washington, School Sts., 
Walnut Ave,, Sigoumey 
St,, Glen Rd,, Forest, 
Hills St,, Morton St,, 
Arborway, N, Y, N, H, & 
H, track, Aptlcou Rd,, 
South St., Belgrade 
Ave,, v«est Roxbury Park- 
way, Centre, Church Sts,, 
City Line 

Charles River, Boston 
Harbor, Northern, Atlan- 
tic Aves,, Milk, ^Washing- 
ton, School, Beacon, Bow- 
doin, Chardon, Portland, 
Traverse, Canal, 'Washing- 
ton Sts» 

Longwood, Huntington •'^ves,, 
Conant, Pax-ker, Station 
Sts., N. 1. N. H, & H. 
track, Camden, Washington, 



-29- 



HaALTH AND Wi!:LFARE AREAS 
Roxbury (Cont'd) 



South Boston 



South End 



West End 



West Roxbury 



CEi-^SUS TRACTS 

S-2, S-5, S-4, 
S-5, S-6, V-1, 
V-2 



M-1, M-2, M-3, 

M-4, N-1, N-2, 

N-5, N-4, 0-1, 

0-2, 0-5, 0-4, 
P-1 



G-1, G-2, G-5, 
G-4, J-1, J-2, 
I-l, 1-2, 1-5, 
1-4, L-1, L-2, 
L— 5 , L— 4 , If— 5 , 
L-6, Q-1 



H-1, H-2, H-5, 
H-4, K-1, K-2 



W-5, i'<-4, W-5, 
W-6 



BOUNDARIES 

Northampton Sts., Harri- 
son Ave,, E, Lenox, 
Fellows, Northampton, 
Albany, Yeoman Sts,, Nor- 
folk Ave., Magazine, 
George, Langdon, Dennis, 
Hucklns Sts., Blue Hill 
Ave., Seaver St., Walnut 
Ave., School, iNashington, 
Atherton Sts,, N, Y, N, 
H, & H, track. Centre, 
Creighton, Bynner, Day, 
Heath, Cranford, Floyd 
Sts,, South Huntington 
Ave,, Castleton St,, 
Jamaicaway, City Line, 
Muddy River 

Fort Point Channel, 
Boston Harbor, Old Har- 
bor, 1925 Ward Line, 
Crescent, Dorchester 
Aves,, Ralston, Boston, 
Ellery, Southampton Sts,, 
N. Y, N, H, & H. track. 
South Bay, 

Fort Point Channel, 
Northern, Atlantic Aves,, 
Milk, Washington, School, 
Beacon, Arlington, Pro- 
vidence, Berkeley, Stan- 
hope Sts,, Trinity Place, 
Stuart, Dartmouth Sts,, 
N. y. N. H. Sr H, track, 
Camden, *«ashington, North- 
ampton Sts,, Harrison ^ve., 
E, Lenox, Fellows, North- 
ampton, Albany, Yeoman Str,, 
Norfolk Ave,, N. Y. N, H. 
& H. track. South Bay 

• 

Charles River, Berkeley, 
Back Sts,, Embankment Rd,, 
Beacon, Bowdoin, Chardon, 
Portland, Traverse, Canal, 
Washington Sts, 

Arborway, N, Y. N, H, & 
H, track, Morton, Forest 
Hills Sts., Glen Rd., Sig- 
oumey St., »*alnut Ave,, 
Seaver St., Bule Hill Ave., 



-50- 



HEALTH AND 'A'ELi''AfliL ABxAS 
West noxbury (Cont'd) 



CaibUK TRACTS 



BOUNDARIES 

Harvard St., Ashland Ave., 
Wilmot, Newbem Sts., 
Richards, Hyde Park Aves., 
Canterbury, Cliffmont Sts., 
Grew Ave., Mansiir St., Met- 
ropolitan Ave,, Biirley, 
Dale, Poplar, Hauteville 
Sts., Clarendon Ave,, Beech, 
Washington, Tiirtle Sts,, 
Pond Rd., Old Hyde Park 
Line, City Line, Chui-ch, 
Centre Sts., West Roxbury 
Parkway, Belgrade Ave., 
South St. 



r 



•2_ 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 




3 9999 06353 020 6 



DEC 1 1 1935 



r