Comparative analysis of 1990 and 2000 Census Bureau



Comparative Analysis

Of 1990 And 2000 Census Bureau

Poverty Statistics For Massachusetts Counties

John Howat

National Consumer Law Center

August 28, 2002

The Census Bureau released new, Massachusetts sub-state income and poverty[1] statistics yesterday. Here is an initial analysis of the data, presented as ratios of income in 1989 and 1999 to poverty at the county level. The tables that follow this narrative reflect State Summary data from the 2000 and 1990 Census Summary Files, followed by county-level data from 2000. There is a chart at the end that shows ratio of income in 1999 to poverty in Massachusetts counties. Please note that these data are now available down to the census tract level, and that they may provide guidance in the development of program outreach efforts going forward.

Massachusetts Summary

The state’s total population increased by over 300,000 between 1989 and 1999, for an increase of 5.3%. However, the state’s extremely poor population (below 50% of the poverty level) increased by about 65,000, or nearly 24%. At the same time, there was a decrease of almost 31,000 in the population living between 50% and 74% of the FPL. The changes between these income categories suggest that some of the increase in the lowest group may have come from those who fell from the next category. The population living below 100% of the federally determined poverty level (FPL) represented 9.3% of the total, state population in 1999, compared to 8.9% of a smaller total population in 1989. There was an 11.8% increase in the total number of Massachusetts residents living below the poverty level in 1999.

The proportion of the population living between 100% and 150% of FPL increased by 10%, from about 332,000 (5.7% of total population) to about 370,000 (6.0% of the total population). The “working poor”[2] population between 150% and 199% of FPL remained relatively static as a proportion of the state total, decreasing from 6.4% in 1989 to 6.3% in 1999. However, the absolute number of people living at this level about increased by 14,000 during the same period. Finally, the Census Bureau reported that 21.7% of the Massachusetts Population lived below 200% of the FPL in 1999, compared to 21.0% in 1989.

In short, new Census data confirm what is reflected in other data sets: the unprecedented economic boom of the 1990s, centered largely right here in the Bay State, did little or nothing to improve the well-being of Massachusetts’ poorest residents. In fact, given what has happened to the housing market in many parts of Massachusetts, the overall impact is almost certain to be negative when viewed from the perspective of available disposable income net of necessities. Further research is needed to conclusively demonstrate the extent to which the absolute and relative growth in poverty during the past decade is the result of children being born into poverty, people falling into poverty, or poor people moving into the state. However, examination of the existing data clearly reveals that the biggest increases between 1989 and 1999 came at the absolute bottom of the income ladder.

Barnstable County

The total population in Barnstable County increased by about 16%, from 183,000 to 218,000. The extremely poor group at below 50% of the FPL increased disproportionately by 27%. At the same time, there was an 18% decrease in the population living between 50% and 75% of the FPL, perhaps indicating that some of this population group “fell” into the below 50% group. Similarly, there was a 2% increase in the 75% - 99% group, and a commensurate 2% decrease in the 100% - 124% group. The working poor population increased by nearly 2000 people in absolute terms, but represented proportionately less of the total population in 1999 (7.2%) than in 1989 (7.9%).

Berkshire County

The total population in Berkshire County decreased by 3.4%, from 133,000 in 1989 to 129,000 in 1999. However, the extremely poor group at below 50% of the FPL increased during this period by nearly 16%. In a shift similar to that exhibited elsewhere in the state, there was a 23% decrease in the population living between 50% and 75% of the FPL, perhaps indicating that some of this population group fell into the below 50% group between 1989 and 1999. Similarly, there was a 13% increase in the 75% - 99% group, and a commensurate 9% decrease in the 100% - 124% group. The population living between 125% and 149% of the FPL rose by 22%. Despite the overall decline in Berkshire County population, the working poor population living between 150% and 200% of the FPL increased slightly. Berkshire County has a population below 200% of the FPL of 26.1%, virtually tied with Franklin County for third highest in the state.

Bristol County

Bristol County Population increased by about 5% between 1989 and 1999. However, population living below 50% of the FPL increased sharply by 35% during this period. Some of the increase in the lowest income category may have come from a 27% decrease in the next income bracket (50% - 74% of the FPL). The total population living below 100% of the FPL increased by about 8,000, and from about 9% to 10% of the population as a whole. The working poor population decreased slightly in Bristol County in both absolute (1,000 people) and relative (0.6%) terms.

Essex County

Essex County Population grew by 7%, or nearly 50,000 people, in the decade between 1989 and 1999. The population living below 50% of the FPL represented about 10% of the total growth. This group grew by nearly 18%, or 5,200 people, during this period. At the same time, there was a drop of nearly 5,900 people in the income category of 50% - 74% of the FPL. In Essex County, the total population living below 100% of the FPL grew by about 2,400, but they represented a slightly smaller percentage of the population as a whole. The working poor population living between 150% and 199% of the FPL remained steady in Essex County.

Franklin County

Total Population in Franklin County grew moderately, by 2% between 1989 and 1999. However, the lowest income category of less than 50% of the FPL grew at more than twice the overall rate, or 4.8%. By 1999, the 50% - 74% of FPL group had lost nearly 27% of its population in 1989. Total population in Franklin County living below 100% of the FPL remained level, as did the working poor population. Franklin County has a population below 200% of the FPL of 25.9%, virtually tied with Berkshire County for third highest in the state.

Hampden County

Overall population in Hampden County declined slightly by 0.2% while the poorest income category of less than 50% of the FPL grew by 32.5%. Consistent with the troubling pattern exhibited elsewhere in the state, much of the increase in the lowest income category appears to have been driven by a steep decline (30.5%) in the 50% - 74% of FPL category, suggesting that, among the poorest of residents, significant numbers of people may have fallen from one category down to the next. Total population living below the poverty level increased from 13% to nearly 15%. Meanwhile, the working poor population in Hampden County grew slightly from 32,688 to 33,448. Total population in Hampden County living below 200% of the FPL was 30.5%, second highest in the state.

Hampshire County

Hampshire County population grew by almost 5% between 1989 and 1999. The population living below 50% of the FPL grew by nearly 3%, while there was decline in the income categories of 50% - 74%, 75% - 99%, and 100% - 124% of FPL. About 9.5% of the Hampshire County population lived below the poverty level in 1999, compared to 10.7% of the population in 1989. The population between 150% and 200% of the FPL grew slightly, from 6.5% in 1989 to 6.7% in 1999.

Middlesex County

Middlesex, the most populous county in Massachusetts, grew by 68,000 people, or 4.8% between 1989 and 1999. The percentage of the population in the lowest income category grew by nearly 18%, well over three times the percentage growth the county’s overall population. The next income category, 50% - 74% of the FPL, declined by 9%, while the overall population living below the poverty level increased somewhat from 6.2% of the total population to 6.5% of the total. The proportion of the population characterized in this report as “working poor” declined slightly, from 5.1% to 4.9%.

Norfolk County

The general population of Norfolk County declined by 5.7% between 1989 and 1999. Counter to the trend in most other of the state’s counties, the population in the lowest income category declined both absolutely and proportionately during the same period. Total population living below the poverty level remained constant, as did the working poor population in Norfolk County.

Plymouth County

In Plymouth County, the general population grew by 8% between 1989 and 1999. At the same time, the population living at less than 50% of the FPL increased by almost 22%. Similar to other Massachusetts counties, this growth coincided with a significant decline, 31.6% in this case, in the population living between 50% and 74% of the FPL. Total Plymouth County population living below 100% of the FPL remained steady, as did the working poor population.

Suffolk County

Suffolk County is home to the state’s largest low-income population. Relative to the statewide average, it has higher percentages of the total population in each of the Census Bureau’s income to poverty categories below 200%. Total Suffolk County population grew by 3.6% between the 1990 and the 2000 Census. Fully 10.3% of the county’s population in 1999 lived below 50% of the FPL, up from 8.4% in 1989. There was a 21% increase in that population group, while there was a 22% decline in the 50% - 74% group. Total population living below the poverty line increased from 18.1% to 19% during the 1990s. The population living between 125% and 149% of the population increased from 3.5% to 4.6% of the total population, the working poor group remained fairly constant. Population below 200% of the FPL increased from 34.8% to 36.7% of the total population.

Worcester County

The population of Worcester County grew by almost 6% between 1989 and 1999. Population living below 50% of the FPL rose sharply, by 35%. There was a coincident 23% decline in the population of the next category (50% - 74% of FPL). About 9.2% of Worcester County residents lived below the poverty line in 1999, compared to 8.3% in 1989. The relative number of working poor remained steady during the period.

|Barnstable |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 182,856 | 4,857 | 4,490 | 4,449 | 6,021 | 5,759 | 6,929 | 2,497 | 4,604 | 143,250 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 13,796| 19,817| 25,576| 32,505 | 35,002 | 39,606| 182,856 |

| | |4,857 |9,347 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.7% |2.5% |2.4% |3.3% |3.1% |3.8% |1.4% |2.5% |78.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.7% |5.1% |7.5% |10.8% |14.0% |17.8% |19.1% |21.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |7.7% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 218,058 | 6,669 | 3,813 | 4,539 | 5,891 | 6,337 | 7,230 | 3,160 | 5,349 | 175,070 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 15,021| 20,912| 27,249| 34,479 | 37,639 | 42,988| 218,058 |

| | |6,669 |10,482 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.1% |1.7% |2.1% |2.7% |2.9% |3.3% |1.4% |2.5% |80.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.1% |4.8% |6.9% |9.6% |12.5% |15.8% |17.3% |19.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 35,202 | 1,812| | | | | 301| 663| | 31,820 |

| | | |(677) |90 |(130) |578 | | |745 | |

|% Difference |16.1% |27.2% |-17.8% |2.0% |-2.2% |9.1% |4.2% |21.0% |13.9% |18.2% |

|Berkshire |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 133,405 | 4,050 | 3,595 | 3,915 | 5,304 | 4,085 | 5,382 | 1,938 | 3,786 | 101,350 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 11,560| 16,864| 20,949| 26,331 | 28,269 | 32,055| 133,405 |

| | |4,050 |7,645 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.0% |2.7% |2.9% |4.0% |3.1% |4.0% |1.5% |2.8% |76.0% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.0% |5.7% |8.7% |12.6% |15.7% |19.7% |21.2% |24.0% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |8.3% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 129,056 | 4,803 | 2,919 | 4,482 | 4,864 | 5,252 | 5,594 | 2,360 | 3,398 | 95,384 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 12,204| 17,068| 22,320| 27,914 | 30,274 | 33,672| 129,056 |

| | |4,803 |7,722 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.7% |2.3% |3.5% |3.8% |4.1% |4.3% |1.8% |2.6% |73.9% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.7% |6.0% |9.5% |13.2% |17.3% |21.6% |23.5% |26.1% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | (4,349)| | | | | 1,167 | 212| 422| | (5,966)|

| | |753 |(676) |567 |(440) | | | |(388) | |

|% Difference |-3.4% |15.7% |-23.2% |12.7% |-9.0% |22.2% |3.8% |17.9% |-11.4% |-6.3% |

|Bristol |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 495,055 | 14,329 | 16,463 | 14,375 | 19,567 | 16,416 | 20,270 | 7,343 | 11,757 | 374,535 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 14,329| | 45,167| 64,734| 81,150| 101,420 | 108,763 | 120,520 | 495,055 |

| | | |30,792 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.9% |3.3% |2.9% |4.0% |3.3% |4.1% |1.5% |2.4% |75.7% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.9% |6.2% |9.1% |13.1% |16.4% |20.5% |22.0% |24.3% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |8.0% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 521,285 | 22,083 | 13,002 | 17,151 | 18,418 | 19,046 | 18,552 | 8,687 | 11,242 | 393,104 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 22,083| | 52,236| 70,654| 89,700| 108,252 | 116,939 | 128,181 | 521,285 |

| | | |35,085 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.2% |2.5% |3.3% |3.5% |3.7% |3.6% |1.7% |2.2% |75.4% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.2% |6.7% |10.0% |13.6% |17.2% |20.8% |22.4% |24.6% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 26,230 | 7,754| | 2,776 | (1,149)| 2,630 | (1,718) | 1,344 | | 18,569 |

| | | |(3,461) | | | | | |(515) | |

|% Difference |5.0% |35.1% |-26.6% |16.2% |-6.2% |13.8% |-9.3% |15.5% |-4.6% |4.7% |

|Dukes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 11,440| | | | | | | | | |

| | |355 |165 |249 |316 |326 |419 |150 |270 |9,190 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | | 1,830| 1,980| | 11,440|

| | |355 |520 |769 |1,085 |1,411 | | |2,250 | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.1% |1.4% |2.2% |2.8% |2.8% |3.7% |1.3% |2.4% |80.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.1% |4.5% |6.7% |9.5% |12.3% |16.0% |17.3% |19.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |7.3% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 14,810| | | | | | | | | 11,442|

| | |473 |239 |371 |426 |658 |800 |152 |249 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | | 2,967| 3,119| | 14,810|

| | |473 |712 |1,083 |1,509 |2,167 | | |3,368 | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.2% |1.6% |2.5% |2.9% |4.4% |5.4% |1.0% |1.7% |77.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.2% |4.8% |7.3% |10.2% |14.6% |20.0% |21.1% |22.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 3,370| | | | | | 381| | | 2,252|

| | |118 |74 |122 |110 |332 | |2 |(21) | |

|% Difference |22.8% |24.9% |31.0% |32.9% |25.8% |50.5% |47.6% |1.3% |-8.4% |19.7% |

|Essex |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 656,972 | 23,943 | 20,426 | 16,402 | 20,412 | 16,347 | 18,741 | 7,328 | 12,797 | 520,576 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 23,943| | 60,771| 81,183| 97,530| 116,271 | 123,599 | 136,396 | 656,972 |

| | | |44,369 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.6% |3.1% |2.5% |3.1% |2.5% |2.9% |1.1% |1.9% |79.2% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.6% |6.8% |9.3% |12.4% |14.8% |17.7% |18.8% |20.8% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |5.9% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 706,651 | 29,094 | 14,544 | 19,499 | 22,375 | 21,195 | 20,294 | 9,024 | 12,719 | 557,907 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 29,094| | 63,137| 85,512| 106,707 | 127,001 | 136,025 | 148,744 | 706,651 |

| | | |43,638 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.1% |2.1% |2.8% |3.2% |3.0% |2.9% |1.3% |1.8% |79.0% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.1% |6.2% |8.9% |12.1% |15.1% |18.0% |19.2% |21.0% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 49,679 | 5,151| | 3,097 | 1,963| 4,848 | 1,553 | 1,696 | | 37,331 |

| | | |(5,882) | | | | | |(78) | |

|% Difference |7.0% |17.7% |-40.4% |15.9% |8.8% |22.9% |7.7% |18.8% |-0.6% |6.7% |

|Franklin |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 68,840 | 2,396 | 2,025 | 2,202 | 2,805 | 2,745 | 2,880 | 1,144 | 1,838 | 50,805 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | 12,173| 15,053 | 16,197 | 18,035| 68,840|

| | |2,396 |4,421 |6,623 |9,428 | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.5% |2.9% |3.2% |4.1% |4.0% |4.2% |1.7% |2.7% |73.8% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.5% |6.4% |9.6% |13.7% |17.7% |21.9% |23.5% |26.2% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |8.5% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 70,216 | 2,518 | 1,599 | 2,517 | 2,400 | 3,076 | 3,031 | 1,141 | 1,872 | 52,062 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | 12,110| 15,141 | 16,282 | 18,154| 70,216|

| | |2,518 |4,117 |6,634 |9,034 | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.6% |2.3% |3.6% |3.4% |4.4% |4.3% |1.6% |2.7% |74.1% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.6% |5.9% |9.4% |12.9% |17.2% |21.6% |23.2% |25.9% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 1,376| | | | | | 151| | | 1,257|

| | |122 |(426) |315 |(405) |331 | |(3) |34 | |

|% Difference |2.0% |4.8% |-26.6% |12.5% |-16.9% |10.8% |5.0% |-0.3% |1.8% |2.4% |

|Hampden |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 442,118 | 19,965| | 16,041| 16,742| 13,904| 15,969 | 6,273| 10,446| 321,447 |

| | | |21,331 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 19,965| | 57,337| 74,079| 87,983| 103,952 | 110,225 | 120,671 | 442,118 |

| | | |41,296 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.5% |4.8% |3.6% |3.8% |3.1% |3.6% |1.4% |2.4% |72.7% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.5% |9.3% |13.0% |16.8% |19.9% |23.5% |24.9% |27.3% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |7.4% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 441,027 | 29,564| | 19,111| 18,038| 17,922| 17,092 | 7,093| | 306,595 |

| | | |16,349 | | | | | |9,263 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 29,564| | 65,024| 83,062| 100,984 | 118,076 | 125,169 | 134,432 | 441,027 |

| | | |45,913 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |6.7% |3.7% |4.3% |4.1% |4.1% |3.9% |1.6% |2.1% |69.5% |

|Cumulative % |  |6.7% |10.4% |14.7% |18.8% |22.9% |26.8% |28.4% |30.5% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | (1,091)| 9,599| | 3,070 | 1,296| 4,018 | 1,123 | 820| (1,183)| (14,852) |

| | | |(4,982) | | | | | | | |

|% Difference |-0.2% |32.5% |-30.5% |16.1% |7.2% |22.4% |6.6% |11.6% |-12.8% |-4.8% |

|Hampshire |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 127,424 | | | | | | 4,331| 1,459| | 96,834|

| | |5,335 |4,004 |4,345 |4,810 |3,810 | | |2,496 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 13,684| 18,494| 22,304| 26,635 | 28,094 | 30,590| 127,424 |

| | |5,335 |9,339 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.2% |3.1% |3.4% |3.8% |3.0% |3.4% |1.1% |2.0% |76.0% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.2% |7.3% |10.7% |14.5% |17.5% |20.9% |22.0% |24.0% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |6.5% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 133,933 | | | | | | 4,153| 2,055| | 103,435 |

| | |5,494 |3,117 |3,974 |4,090 |4,849 | | |2,766 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | 12,585| 16,675| 21,524| 25,677 | 27,732 | 30,498| 133,933 |

| | |5,494 |8,611 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.1% |2.3% |3.0% |3.1% |3.6% |3.1% |1.5% |2.1% |77.2% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.1% |6.4% |9.4% |12.5% |16.1% |19.2% |20.7% |22.8% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 6,509| | | | | 1,039 | | 596| | 6,601|

| | |159 |(887) |(371) |(720) | |(178) | |270 | |

|% Difference |4.9% |2.9% |-28.5% |-9.3% |-17.6% |21.4% |-4.3% |29.0% |9.8% |6.4% |

|Middlesex |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 1,347,591 | 35,794| | 23,943| 29,386| 27,253| 33,881 | 12,848 | 21,923| 1,139,361 |

| | | |23,202 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 35,794| | 82,939| 112,325 | 139,578 | 173,459 | 186,307 | 208,230 | 1,347,591 |

| | | |58,996 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.7% |1.7% |1.8% |2.2% |2.0% |2.5% |1.0% |1.6% |84.5% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.7% |4.4% |6.2% |8.3% |10.4% |12.9% |13.8% |15.5% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |5.1% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 1,415,664 | 43,597| | 27,816| 30,765| 32,214| 33,812 | 15,301 | 20,934| 1,189,933 |

| | | |21,292 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 43,597| | 92,705| 123,470 | 155,684 | 189,496 | 204,797 | 225,731 | 1,415,664 |

| | | |64,889 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.1% |1.5% |2.0% |2.2% |2.3% |2.4% |1.1% |1.5% |84.1% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.1% |4.6% |6.5% |8.7% |11.0% |13.4% |14.5% |15.9% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 68,073 | 7,803| | 3,873 | 1,379| 4,961 | | 2,453 | | 50,572 |

| | | |(1,910) | | | |(69) | |(989) | |

|% Difference |4.8% |17.9% |-9.0% |13.9% |4.5% |15.4% |-0.2% |16.0% |-4.7% |4.2% |

|Nantucket |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | | | | | | | | | | |

| |5,937 |130 |118 |92 |197 |86 |218 |97 |82 |4,917 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | | | | | |

| | |130 |248 |340 |537 |623 |841 |938 |1,020 |5,937 |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.2% |2.0% |1.5% |3.3% |1.4% |3.7% |1.6% |1.4% |82.8% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.2% |4.2% |5.7% |9.0% |10.5% |14.2% |15.8% |17.2% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |6.7% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | | | | | | | | | | |

| |9,454 |453 |125 |134 |197 |229 |340 |39 |111 |7,826 |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | | | | | | 1,478| 1,517| | |

| | |453 |578 |712 |909 |1,138 | | |1,628 |9,454 |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.8% |1.3% |1.4% |2.1% |2.4% |3.6% |0.4% |1.2% |82.8% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.8% |6.1% |7.5% |9.6% |12.0% |15.6% |16.0% |17.2% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 3,517| | | | | | 122| | | 2,909|

| | |323 |7 |42 |- |143 | |(58) |29 | |

|% Difference |37.2% |71.3% |5.6% |31.3% |0.0% |62.4% |35.9% |-148.7% |26.1% |37.2% |

|Norfolk |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 599,269 | 11,577| | | 11,820| 10,066| 12,412 | 5,363| | 524,048 |

| | | |7,047 |8,511 | | | | |8,425 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 11,577| | 27,135| 38,955| 49,021| 61,433 | 66,796 | 75,221| 599,269 |

| | | |18,624 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |1.9% |1.2% |1.4% |2.0% |1.7% |2.1% |0.9% |1.4% |87.4% |

|Cumulative % |  |1.9% |3.1% |4.5% |6.5% |8.2% |10.3% |11.1% |12.6% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |4.4% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 633,203 | 14,729| | | 11,193| 11,869| 12,046 | 5,895| | 554,467 |

| | | |6,569 |8,079 | | | | |8,356 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 14,729| | 29,377| 40,570| 52,439| 64,485 | 70,380 | 78,736| 633,203 |

| | | |21,298 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.3% |1.0% |1.3% |1.8% |1.9% |1.9% |0.9% |1.3% |87.6% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.3% |3.4% |4.6% |6.4% |8.3% |10.2% |11.1% |12.4% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 33,934 | 3,152| | | | 1,803 | | 532| | 30,419 |

| | | |(478) |(432) |(627) | |(366) | |(69) | |

|% Difference |5.4% |21.4% |-7.3% |-5.3% |-5.6% |15.2% |-3.0% |9.0% |-0.8% |5.5% |

|Plymouth |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 424,164 | 10,822| | | 10,902| | 13,050 | 4,261| | 350,454 |

| | | |8,635 |8,396 | |9,566 | | |8,078 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 10,822| | 27,853| 38,755| 48,321| 61,371 | 65,632 | 73,710| 424,164 |

| | | |19,457 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |2.6% |2.0% |2.0% |2.6% |2.3% |3.1% |1.0% |1.9% |82.6% |

|Cumulative % |  |2.6% |4.6% |6.6% |9.1% |11.4% |14.5% |15.5% |17.4% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |6.0% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 460,919 | 13,818| | 10,269| 11,252| 12,454| 14,472 | 5,408| | 379,445 |

| | | |6,562 | | | | | |7,239 | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 13,818| | 30,649| 41,901| 54,355| 68,827 | 74,235 | 81,474| 460,919 |

| | | |20,380 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.0% |1.4% |2.2% |2.4% |2.7% |3.1% |1.2% |1.6% |82.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.0% |4.4% |6.6% |9.1% |11.8% |14.9% |16.1% |17.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 36,755 | 2,996| | 1,873 | | 2,888 | 1,422 | 1,147 | | 28,991 |

| | | |(2,073) | |350 | | | |(839) | |

|% Difference |8.0% |21.7% |-31.6% |18.2% |3.1% |23.2% |9.8% |21.2% |-11.6% |7.6% |

|Suffolk |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 633,998 | 53,518| | 29,049| 30,043| 22,411| 27,256 | 10,125 | 15,990| 413,425 |

| | | |32,181 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 53,518| | 114,748 | 144,791 | 167,202 | 194,458 | 204,583 | 220,573 | 633,998 |

| | | |85,699 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |8.4% |5.1% |4.6% |4.7% |3.5% |4.3% |1.6% |2.5% |65.2% |

|Cumulative % |  |8.4% |13.5% |18.1% |22.8% |26.4% |30.7% |32.3% |34.8% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |8.4% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 657,730 | 67,766| | 30,782| 30,007| 30,078| 28,953 | 11,357 | 15,976| 416,441 |

| | | |26,370 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 67,766| | 124,918 | 154,925 | 185,003 | 213,956 | 225,313 | 241,289 | 657,730 |

| | | |94,136 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |10.3% |4.0% |4.7% |4.6% |4.6% |4.4% |1.7% |2.4% |63.3% |

|Cumulative % |  |10.3% |14.3% |19.0% |23.6% |28.1% |32.5% |34.3% |36.7% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 23,732 | 14,248 | | 1,733 | | 7,667 | 1,697 | 1,232 | | 3,016|

| | | |(5,811) | |(36) | | | |(14) | |

|% Difference |3.6% |21.0% |-22.0% |5.6% |-0.1% |25.5% |5.9% |10.8% |-0.1% |0.7% |

|Worcester |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|1990 Census |  |Ratio of Income to Poverty |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 683,346 | 20,373| | 16,666| 20,321| 20,019| 22,522 | 9,373| 14,323| 540,171 |

| | | |19,578 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 20,373| | 56,617| 76,938| 96,957| 119,479 | 128,852 | 143,175 | 683,346 |

| | | |39,951 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |3.0% |2.9% |2.4% |3.0% |2.9% |3.3% |1.4% |2.1% |79.0% |

|Cumulative % |  |3.0% |5.8% |8.3% |11.3% |14.2% |17.5% |18.9% |21.0% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |6.8% |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over |

|Population | 726,438 | 31,448| | 19,794| 20,870| 24,070| 23,889 | 10,815 | 14,521| 565,137 |

| | | |15,894 | | | | | | | |

|Cumulative Pop. |  | 31,448| | 67,136| 88,006| 112,076 | 135,965 | 146,780 | 161,301 | 726,438 |

| | | |47,342 | | | | | | | |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|% of Total |100.0% |4.3% |2.2% |2.7% |2.9% |3.3% |3.3% |1.5% |2.0% |77.8% |

|Cumulative % |  |4.3% |6.5% |9.2% |12.1% |15.4% |18.7% |20.2% |22.2% |100.0% |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|Population Difference | 43,092 | 11,075 | | 3,128 | | 4,051 | 1,367 | 1,442 | | 24,966 |

| | | |(3,684) | |549 | | | |198 | |

|% Difference |5.9% |35.2% |-23.2% |15.8% |2.6% |16.8% |5.7% |13.3% |1.4% |4.4% |

| | | | | | | |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| | Total: | Under .50 | 50 to .74 | 75 to .99 | 1.00 to 1.24| 1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

| |Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |

|U.S. Census Bureau | | |

|Total: |Under .50 |50 to .74 |75 to .99 |1.00 to 1.24 |1.25 to 1.49 |1.50 to 1.74 |1.75 to 1.84 |1.85 to 1.99 |2.00 and over | |Ashburnham | 5,498 | 131 | 73 | 146 | 93 | 90 | 205 | 191 | 73 | 4,496 | |Athol | 10,997 | 423 | 310 | 305 | 451 | 559 | 598 | 444 | 406 | 7,501 | |Auburn | 15,735 | 187 | 166 | 163 | 301 | 369 | 429 | 160 | 310 | 13,650 | |Barre | 5,105 | 91 | 38 | 47 | 110 | 232 | 164 | 121 | 120 | 4,182 | |Berlin | 2,375 | 8 | - | 84 | 69 | 65 | 47 | 25 | 40 | 2,037 | |Blackstone | 8,767 | 218 | 39 | 70 | 192 | 236 | 204 | 58 | 153 | 7,597 | |Bolton | 4,131 | 26 | - | 49 | 38 | 34 | 27 | 8 | 17 | 3,932 | |Boylston | 4,003 | 62 | 18 | 31 | 19 | 78 | 94 | 10 | 58 | 3,633 | |Brookfield | 3,042 | 53 | 46 | 88 | 61 | 108 | 183 | 5 | 74 | 2,424 | |Charlton | 11,058 | 306 | 237 | 77 | 259 | 76 | 146 | 171 | 164 | 9,622 | |Clinton | 13,279 | 348 | 286 | 315 | 275 | 625 | 434 | 275 | 396 | 10,325 | |Douglas | 7,020 | 136 | 103 | 86 | 115 | 105 | 172 | 76 | 98 | 6,129 | |Dudley | 9,591 | 252 | 107 | 178 | 425 | 278 | 315 | 153 | 183 | 7,700 | |East Brookfield | 2,084 | 17 | 21 | 44 | 49 | 70 | 56 | 19 | 61 | 1,747 | |Fitchburg | 37,460 | 2,400 | 1,219 | 2,008 | 1,717 | 1,939 | 1,835 | 776 | 1,032 | 24,534 | |Grafton | 14,669 | 441 | 132 | 255 | 278 | 387 | 310 | 199 | 259 | 12,408 | |Hardwick | 2,602 | 97 | 12 | 86 | 50 | 100 | 134 | 34 | 68 | 2,021 | |Harvard | 5,239 | 91 | 5 | 10 | 21 | 58 | 11 | 13 | 43 | 4,987 | |Holden | 15,447 | 228 | 161 | 90 | 204 | 259 | 207 | 76 | 243 | 13,979 | |Hopedale | 5,776 | 174 | 17 | 41 | 27 | 68 | 93 | 88 | 78 | 5,190 | |Hubbardston | 3,878 | 91 | 28 | 24 | 60 | 58 | 54 | 30 | 57 | 3,476 | |Lancaster | 5,711 | 127 | 23 | 87 | 49 | 129 | 201 | 97 | 152 | 4,846 | |Leicester | 10,059 | 171 | 54 | 208 | 236 | 214 | 306 | 113 | 70 | 8,687 | |Leominster | 40,915 | 1,705 | 1,101 | 1,083 | 1,278 | 1,682 | 1,297 | 631 | 937 | 31,201 | |Lunenburg | 9,386 | 156 | 42 | 184 | 77 | 172 | 222 | 77 | 178 | 8,278 | |Mendon | 5,282 | 69 | 74 | 69 | 38 | 73 | 106 | 39 | 80 | 4,734 | |Milford | 26,478 | 759 | 487 | 662 | 852 | 683 | 783 | 355 | 475 | 21,422 | |Millbury | 12,445 | 395 | 170 | 214 | 227 | 385 | 391 | 197 | 156 | 10,310 | |Millville | 2,689 | 94 | 24 | 38 | 23 | 65 | 116 | 36 | 39 | 2,254 | |New Braintree | 919 | 9 | 19 | 14 | 18 | 32 | 30 | - | 1 | 796 | |Northborough | 13,824 | 141 | 120 | 125 | 169 | 115 | 62 | 201 | 149 | 12,742 | |Northbridge | 12,793 | 233 | 127 | 316 | 438 | 305 | 527 | 174 | 289 | 10,384 | |North Brookfield | 4,586 | 104 | 78 | 68 | 89 | 134 | 193 | 75 | 44 | 3,801 | |Oakham | 1,667 | 25 | 5 | 2 | 33 | 25 | 18 | 16 | 46 | 1,497 | |Oxford | 13,192 | 338 | 359 | 329 | 181 | 384 | 447 | 209 | 281 | 10,664 | |Paxton | 4,008 | 36 | 18 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 85 | - | 30 | 3,719 | |Petersham | 1,132 | 44 | 21 | 1 | 22 | 21 | 29 | 6 | 27 | 961 | |Phillipston | 1,610 | 40 | 18 | 35 | 26 | 25 | 98 | 23 | 35 | 1,310 | |Princeton | 3,348 | 51 | 35 | 62 | 57 | 65 | 35 | 23 | 3 | 3,017 | |Royalston | 1,247 | 35 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 87 | 64 | 40 | 45 | 859 | |Rutland | 6,237 | 149 | 51 | 6 | 187 | 139 | 62 | 48 | 48 | 5,547 | |Shrewsbury | 31,508 | 553 | 470 | 475 | 386 | 489 | 592 | 371 | 359 | 27,813 | |Southborough | 8,767 | 56 | 33 | 50 | 32 | 126 | 39 | 27 | 43 | 8,361 | |Southbridge | 16,950 | 1,261 | 591 | 764 | 695 | 833 | 816 | 381 | 407 | 11,202 | |Spencer | 11,640 | 460 | 283 | 258 | 280 | 404 | 413 | 138 | 258 | 9,146 | |Sterling | 7,257 | 40 | 94 | 79 | 44 | 77 | 133 | 156 | 9 | 6,625 | |Sturbridge | 7,814 | 353 | 27 | 94 | 133 | 281 | 144 | 50 | 110 | 6,622 | |Sutton | 8,182 | 157 | 106 | 97 | 114 | 166 | 92 | 15 | 43 | 7,392 | |Templeton | 6,497 | 172 | 103 | 313 | 191 | 165 | 397 | 41 | 122 | 4,993 | |Upton | 5,593 | 121 | 9 | 67 | 68 | 87 | 65 | - | 46 | 5,130 | |Uxbridge | 11,098 | 139 | 195 | 186 | 148 | 324 | 246 | 200 | 112 | 9,548 | |Warren | 4,723 | 124 | 101 | 62 | 120 | 447 | 365 | 148 | 184 | 3,172 | |Webster | 16,096 | 731 | 510 | 526 | 627 | 705 | 761 | 349 | 285 | 11,602 | |Westborough | 17,293 | 530 | 126 | 149 | 138 | 247 | 226 | 163 | 108 | 15,606 | |West Boylston | 6,113 | 47 | 13 | 136 | 84 | 75 | 176 | 55 | 113 | 5,414 | |West Brookfield | 3,423 | 99 | 65 | 69 | 65 | 96 | 53 | 7 | 36 | 2,933 | |Westminster | 6,841 | 89 | 66 | 57 | 90 | 194 | 244 | 130 | 67 | 5,904 | |Winchendon | 9,520 | 477 | 141 | 335 | 405 | 257 | 334 | 178 | 309 | 7,084 | |Worcester | 162,475 | 14,865 | 6,633 | 7,617 | 7,700 | 7,595 | 7,345 | 2,813 | 4,273 | 103,634 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Population | 707,074 | 30,735 | 15,444 | 19,094 | 20,196 | 23,178 | 23,231 | 10,514 | 13,902 | 550,780 | |Cumulative Pop. | |30,735 |46,179 |65,273 |85,469 |108,647 |131,878 |142,392 |156,294 |707,074 | |% of Total |100.0% |4.3% |2.2% |2.7% |2.9% |3.3% |3.3% |1.5% |2.0% |77.9% | |Cumulative % | |4.3% |6.5% |9.2% |12.1% |15.4% |18.7% |20.1% |22.1% |100.0% | |

-----------------------

[1] Clearly, the federal poverty level is no longer accepted broadly as the only or even the best measure of well-being. However, it remains the measure that is systematically compiled by the Census Bureau for populations at the sub-state level.

[2] This term is used loosely here, and just for the purposes of this report. In reality, there are some people in this income category who may not be receiving wages, and others in higher income categories who may legitimately be considered “poor.”

-----------------------

[pic]

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download