This is the third entry in an ongoing series on the 24 Massachusetts municipalities known as the “Gateway Cities.” Click here for an introduction to this series.

In previous editions of the Gateway Series, I have addressed employment and foreclosures in the 24 Massachusetts communities known as “Gateway Cities.” For this edition, I will address the October 6, 2011 article in the Boston Globe, “Poverty Rates Swell in Region’s Large Cities,” which focused on Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, and Somerville. While I applaud the overall article, the focus on these four cities can lead some readers to think this a problem in only these cities, when these four are but examples. Poverty is a problem across Massachusetts cities, and may be worse in some communities not discussed in the article.

The Boston Globe article uses the just released 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data as its basis and highlights the high poverty rates in four northeastern Massachusetts cities: Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn, and Somerville. Building on this data, the Globe’s interviews with local agencies and officials highlights not only how those in poverty are undercounted, but also the difficulties that families face, even those families who do have jobs.

In keeping with the Gateway Series, I would like to highlight the other cities where ACS data was available, because Lawrence, Lowell, Lynn and Somerville are not the only cities in Massachusetts that are suffering.

Due to data reliability concerns, the US Census Bureau does not release one-year American Community Survey data for communities with fewer than 65,000 persons. For this reason, data is available for only nine of the 24 Gateway Communities, as well as five other Massachusetts municipalities.

Chart 1 shows the 2008 and 2010 poverty rates for Massachusetts’ 14 largest municipalities. Lawrence had the highest poverty rate in the state (27.3 percent), compared to 23.6 percent in 2008. The other three mentioned in the article—Lynn (20.3 percent), Somerville (18.1 percent) and Lowell (15.8 percent) were below some other Massachusetts cities, including Springfield (26.8 percent), New Bedford (24 percent), Boston (23.3 percent), Fall River (22.4 percent),and Brockton (20.3 percent).  

 While the Globe article did mention the increases in poverty since 2000, the changes in poverty since 2008 are also astounding, given the short timeframe. The poverty rate increased 45 percent in Brockton from 2008 to 2010, followed by a 31.1 percent increase in Worcester (see Chart 2).  Given the statistical margin of error, poverty rates may be unchanged in communities such as Newton, Framingham, Lowell, Springfield and New Bedford, but the dramatic increases in Boston, Worcester and Brockton are statistically significant.

Time to Take a Deeper Look at Brockton?

Indeed, the steep increase in poverty in Brockton leads me to take a deeper look at the city’s problems.  While it is beyond the scope of this posting to go into significant detail, on three measures, Brockton is clearly suffering in this recession.  

1)  According to unemployment data from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, Brockton, with an 11.6 percent unemployment rate in 2010, did not have the highest unemployment rate of the fourteen cities included in the ACS data, but the increase in the unemployment rate from 2008 to 2010 was the highest in Brockton (71 percent). For the 14 cities, the average increase was 59 percent.  Of the remaining 13 cities, 2010 unemployment rates were higher in than Brockton in Lawrence (16.5 percent), Fall River (14.7 percent), New Bedford (14.6 percent), and Springfield (12.6 percent).

2) Brockton has the highest levels of foreclosure distress. Brockton regularly has the highest proportion of housing in foreclosure distress (a combination of bank-owned properties and properties currently in the foreclosure process) in my quarterly reports on foreclosures, the Massachusetts Housing Partnership’s Foreclosure Monitor.  Of the 14 cities discussed in this posting, Brockton had the highest level of foreclosure distress in July 2011, at 33 units per 1,000 housing units, far exceeding Lynn and Springfield (25 per 1,000 units), Lawrence (24) or Worcester (22).

3) Of the 24 Gateway Communities, Brockton has seen the steepest decline in real estate prices. According to data from The Warren Group, median sales prices declined 49 percent from 2005 (annual) to the first half of 2011. Lawrence had the second steepest decline (45 percent). It is likely that this decline is tied in with the causes of the high levels of foreclosure (e.g., sub-prime lending and a real estate bubble (median sales prices increased 144 percent from 1999 to 2005)), as well as the foreclosures themselves.

Long Term Poverty

Let us also not forget the cities that traditionally have had the highest poverty rates that also were not discussed in the Boston Globe article, including Springfield, New Bedford, Boston and Fall River. Each of these cities are unique in terms of their local economies and the character of their local communities, worthy of further discussion.  

September 7th was the last day to register to vote for Boston’s preliminary City Council elections. While much of the current focus in Massachusetts political circles has been on the redistricting of Massachusetts U.S. Congressional seats, it is also time for redistricting of state legislative and city council districts. The redistricting of Boston’s nine city council districts faces some interesting challenges. Population increases in downtown areas were offset by population declines in other neighborhoods, and given physical geography, the residences of current city councilors, and concerns about fair representation of people of color, the task of redistricting is difficult.

The Context

Every ten years, “redistricting” becomes news, as the results of the decennial U.S. Census counts are released and states begin the task of shifting political district boundaries to account for population changes. For Massachusetts, this is an especially difficult round, as the state loses one of its U.S. Congressional seats (there will be nine, instead of ten). The last time this occurred was after the 1990 Census, but the process was made easier by the retirement Brian Donnelly (D-Dorchester). To date, none of the current Massachusetts Members of U.S. Congress have indicated they would retire.

The Massachusetts Special Joint Committee on Redistricting has a difficult task ahead, as it attempts to redistrict not only U.S. Congressional Districts, but also 40 State Senate Districts and 160 State Representative Districts.  The entire process is one big puzzle—shift a boundary at one corner of the state, and it can affect the boundaries across the state. Redistricting is not a technical exercise. Politics and demographics intervene with each new map, making the effort fraught with pitfalls. Indeed, after the 2000 state legislative redistricting process, challenges to the results eventually led to charges of perjury and obstruction of justice against then House Speaker Thomas Finneran. In the end, Finneran resigned from the House, pleaded guilty to the obstruction of justice, and was disbarred from practicing law.

Boston has 13 City Councilors. Since 1983, four have been elected at-large and nine are elected from districts. Given that 2010 U.S. Census data was not available until spring 2011, new boundaries could not be established for the 2011 election. New boundaries will need to be established in time for the 2013 City Council elections.

The following map outlines the current Boston City Council District boundaries, and Table 1 outlines the current City Councilor, as well as the 2000 and 2010 population counts for these districts.

Boston's Population Growth Has Been Geographically Uneven

In order to meet the “one person, one vote” criteria established under redistricting law, districts should have roughly equal populations, which was 65,460 in 2000 and 68,622 in 2010. As creating districts with exactly equal populations is difficult, districts are permitted that vary from this expected population by as much as five percent. In other words, districts can vary from 95 percent to 105 percent of expected population. After 2000, City Council redistricting resulted in districts ranging from 96.5 percent of expected (District 6) to 103.8 percent of expected (District 5).

Between 2000 and 2010, despite the fact that Boston as a whole grew 4.8 percent, this growth was uneven. At the same time that population grew 16 percent in District 2 (South Boston/South End), 13 percent in District 7 (Roxbury/South End) and ten percent in District 8 (Mission Hill/Fenway/Back Bay/Beacon Hill), population declined five percent in District 4 (Dorchester/Mattapan), four percent in District 3 (Dorchester), and three percent in District 5 (Hyde Park/Mattapan/Roslindale).  As a result, to meet the five percent variance rule, changes will be needed for seven of the nine districts, and given the difficulties of putting together the entire puzzle; changes may be needed for the remaining two districts as well.

The following map puts this problem in better perspective, showing the population change, by election precinct. Population increases are primarily due to:

1) Construction of new, dense projects in the urban core, including downtown, Chinatown, the South End and South Boston’s Seaport District.

2) Construction of new student dormitories in downtown, Lower Roxbury, the Fenway/Kenmore Square and Allston/Brighton.

3) The completion of affordable housing projects in Roxbury. At the time of the 2000 Census, a significant number of tenants had been relocated temporarily while the so-called “Demo Dispo” and similar projects were under rehabilitation or reconstruction.

Population declines were concentrated largely in Dorchester and Mattapan and are generally not due to a decline in the number of housing units. While housing vacancy rates have increased from 2000 to 2010, this also does not appear to be the chief driver of population loss. Instead, a decline in the number of persons per household (a reduction in population density) drove population losses.

Given the relative shift of population northward towards Boston’s central neighborhoods, City Council District boundaries must also shift northward, shrinking the geographic area of Districts 1, 2, 7 and 8 in particular, while increasing the geographic area of Districts 3 and 4.

Boston’s Changing Ethnic/Racial Demographics

In addition to the relative shift of population to downtown neighborhoods, Boston’s ethnic/racial mix continues to change.  White, non-Hispanic people now make up 47 percent of Boston’s 2010 population, down from 49.5 percent in 2000. While this is not a dramatic change at the citywide level, there have been some changes at the neighborhood level. The maps below depict the concentration of non-white or Hispanic persons (all persons of color), by election precinct, for 2000 and 2010. Boston’s historical pattern of racial segregation is clear. Neighborhoods in Back Bay, Charlestown, Jamaica Plain, South Boston and West Roxbury, for example, have white (non-Hispanic) populations of greater than 75 percent, while Roxbury and Mattapan are over 75 percent persons of color.

 

Comparing 2000 and 2010 presents some interesting changes. While the percent of persons of color has declined in some precincts, most notably in parts of the South End, Jamaica Plain and Mission Hill, it is more notable that there are a number of precincts that became majority persons of color over the decade. This trend is clearest in Hyde Park, but also in smaller areas such as a part of Allston/Brighton and in the Lower Mills section of Dorchester.

These changes have implications for redistricting. In the redistricting process, race has been used as a tool to disenfranchise persons of color. By “packing” persons of color into just a few districts, the distinct concerns of persons of color may only be taken account of in these districts. Yes, candidates of color may be guaranteed election from these districts, but persons of color have little opportunity to win elective office or to have their concerns heard in other districts.

I am not a legal expert, but it appears that the historic boundaries of Districts 4 and 7 serve this purpose. Since the creation of the districts in 1983, no person of color has been elected District City Councilor except from these two districts. As the overall demographics of the city have changed, however, persons of color have seen improved opportunities to get elected citywide. Of the four at-large councilors, one is African American, one is Latino and two are white. There has also been one Asian at-large member of the Boston City Council.

History has slowly undermined this system. Both in 2000 and 2010, persons of color constituted a majority in four districts (Districts 3, 4, 5 and 7), compared to two after the 1990 census.  In Districts 3 and 5, this majority has strengthened since 2000. Even though the city councilors who represent these districts are white (Feeney and Consalvo, respectively), both have had to garner the support of persons of color in order to remain in office.

Please note in the following table, all those who are "not white (non-Hispanic)" can also be understood as "persons of color".

One of the additional challenges in the redistricting process is that “persons of color” is not a monolithic group of people. As can be seen in Table 2, the largest racial/ethnic group in each district is not necessarily a majority of the residents. For example, in Dorchester’s district 3, 65 percent of residents are persons of color, but the largest single race/ethnicity is whites (non-Hispanic), at 35 percent of the population. District 3 has large populations in all the major racial/ethnic categories—35 percent white (non-Hispanic), 28 percent black or African American (non-Hispanic), 16 percent Asian (non-Hispanic), and 12 percent Latino or Hispanic. In addition, among the nine districts, District 3 has the largest percentage of those in other racial/ethnic categories (9 percent). This can be attributed largely to the Cape Verdean community. Whoever represents District 3 needs to embrace diversity, not a single race/ethnicity, to succeed.

Also, please note that the largest populations in the nine districts are either white (non-Hispanic) or blacks and African Americans (non-Hispanic).  Where does this leave Asians and Hispanics/Latinos?  From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of the population that was white (non-Hispanic) declined from 49.5 percent to 47 percent, and blacks and African Americans (non-Hispanic) declined from 23.8 percent to 22.4 percent of the population. The percentage of Hispanics/Latinos increased the most, from 14.4 percent of 17.5 percent of Boston’s population, and Asians (non-Hispanic) increased from 7.5 percent to 8.9 percent of the population.  Given that both Hispanics/Latino and Asians in Boston are located in sub-neighborhoods spread across the city (often due to differences in national origin), there is almost no chance that these groups will constitute a majority in any of the nine districts in the near future.

 Boston’s Physical Geography

Allston/Brighton, East Boston and Charlestown are physically separated from the core of the city. Allston/Brighton has sufficient population to stand alone as a district, while East Boston and Charlestown, combined with the North End, form a district. This leaves policy and map makers with seven districts to form. While it would seem that this would simplify the redistricting process, when there are fewer districts available to change, this situation increases the difficulty of creating districts that have persons of color in the majority while also addressing population changes and the existing residences of city councilors.

Precincts Are the Building Blocks of Redistricting

Election precincts are the building blocks of Boston City Council districts, but these blocks are not of equal size. While the average precinct contains 2,431 persons, the population ranges dramatically, from 535 in Ward 1, Precinct 15 in East Boston, to 8,557 in Ward 3, Precinct 8, in Chinatown. Just from a technical perspective, this creates challenges to efforts to equalize populations across the districts. Though this is the extreme, the population of Ward 3, Precinct 8 is 12.5 percent of the population needed for a City Council district. Moving this one precinct creates a large swing in a district’s population.

More importantly, the differing precinct sizes have implications for both the City of Boston and voters.  A minimum number of staff persons are required for each precinct, no matter the size or turn out, while other precincts suffer from too few staff to meet the large number of voters, creating excessive wait times for voters. In precincts with long lines to vote, some voters become discouraged from voting.  MassVote and others are calling for the redrawing of precinct boundaries, for the first time in 70 years. The City would then be able to better balance its use of resources, and wait times for voters would be reduced.

The Residences of Current District City Councilors

One factor that always plays a role in redistricting is the residence of current office holders. During the redistricting process, politicians are loath to put two current office holders in the same district. Politicians also generally wish to represent the same set of constituents from year to year and therefore do not like to change district boundaries dramatically. In the case of Boston, the following complications are created by the residences of current city councilors (in no particular order of importance):

• City Councilor Yancey (District 4) lives near the border of District 3, complicating the expansion of District 3.
• City Councilor Jackson (District 7) lives in the southeastern corner of his district, complicating the possibility of shifting the core of his district northward.
• City Councilors O’Malley (District 6) and Ross (District 8) live near each other. Boundaries will have to be drawn carefully so as to avoid an election between the two.
• City Councilor Ross’s residence in the southwestern corner of his elongated district complicates the need to address downtown population increases.

In addition, in November 2011, a new City Councilor will be elected to represent District 3 (Dorchester), and that residence could add further complications to the mapping process.

How Difficult Is It to Redistrict?

I attempted to adjust boundaries for population changes and the residences of current councilors. I was able to accomplish this task by shifting less than 20 precincts. I have not presented these changes here, as it was simply an exercise—not a full-fledged proposal. A proper redistricting proposal would take these factors into account, take a harder look at the percentage of each district that are people of color (both in terms of the overall population and the voting age population), and most importantly, take into account the desires of the individual racial, ethnic, and geographic communities that are the diversity of Boston.  This is a task properly undertaken by those who are able to take into account the needs of communities, including the City Council itself, coalitions of organizations and voting advocates such as MassVote.You can also have your voice heard, through an upcoming series of City Council hearings being held across the city!

Given that the Boston City Council has the task of drawing its own boundaries, I do not envy their job. Creating workable boundaries that meet both legal requirements AND the desires of constituents is difficult, and in the end, there will always be someone who is unhappy with the result.

On September 6th, the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of the tenant living in a foreclosed property, clarifying the implementation of a August 2010 foreclosure law. I contributed to this case through an amicus brief with the Mass Law Reform Institute. I'm pleased with the outcome!

This is the second entry in an ongoing series on the 24 Massachusetts municipalities known as the “Gateway Cities.” Click here for an introduction to this series.

The foreclosure crises started in the sub-prime mortgage market. Nationally, these loans were concentrated in two types of real estate markets: 1) urban neighborhoods, especially those with weak/distressed real estate markets, and 2) new neighborhoods built on speculation. A 2006 joint Pioneer Institute/Rappaport Institute report[1] identified local zoning policy as a major constraint on new housing production, creating the conditions for the upward spiral of Massachusetts housing prices from 2000 to 2005. As a result of this lack of new production, unlike the housing booms in the sunbelt states of Arizona, Florida and Nevada (which have the highest foreclosure rates in the country), there were few neighborhoods built on speculation, limiting Massachusetts exposure to these types of foreclosures.

 Massachusetts was not spared from the foreclosure crisis, however, and it hit hardest the urban neighborhoods in the Gateway Municipalities and the Boston neighborhoods of Dorchester, East Boston, Hyde Park, Mattapan and Roxbury. According to the latest release of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership’s (MHP) Foreclosure Monitor (which I also author), eight of the 24 Gateway municipalities ranked in the top 20 in terms of foreclosure distress as of July 1, 2011. Of these eight, Brockton has consistently taken one of the top two spots in MHP’s quarterly report. From the same period in 2009 to 2011, the rate of foreclosure distress declined ten percent statewide, largely due to a slowing in lender foreclosure processes, not due to an improvement in the housing market.  As you can see in table below, with the exception of Taunton, the rate of distress has declined more for the Gateway Municipalities than it did for the state as a whole. In fact, Lawrence saw a 41 percent decline in distress, but only improved from second to eighth[2]. 

My quarterly Foreclosure Monitor data has been posted at the Massachusetts Housing Partnership's web site. This report outlines the current levels of foreclosure distress by Massachusetts municipalities, zip codes and census tracts. While the number of units affected by foreclosure appears to be down, this is largely due to the fact that many lenders have slowed their foreclosure processes.

Click here for an introduction on the Gateway Series.

High unemployment persists in the Gateway Cities, and these cities are worse off today compared to the state today than they were before the recession. Although you might expect that this deterioration is due to a greater loss of jobs than other parts of the state, this is not the case. The Gateway Cities actually have outperformed the remainder of the state on employment during the recession. While unemployment has declined in the rest of the state due to a decline the labor force, the labor force has grown in the Gateway Cities, highlighting the importance of these cities to the regeneration of Massachusetts’ total labor force.

Unemployment Is Higher in Gateway Cities

Employment in Massachusetts peaked in July 2008. At that time, unemployment was higher in the Gateway Cities (7.0 percent) than in Boston (5.6 percent) or Massachusetts as a whole (5.4 percent). In cities and towns outside Boston and the Gateway Cities, unemployment was 4.9 percent (see Chart and Table 1). The number of employed Massachusetts residents declined six percent from July 2008 to the trough in January 2010. At that time, Massachusetts unemployment stood at 9.6 percent. Unemployment was 12.1 percent in the Gateway Cities and 8.4 percent in Boston. At 8.9 percent, unemployment in cities and towns outside Boston and the Gateway Cities was now higher than Boston.  From January 2010 to May 2011, the unemployment rate declined to 7.4 percent in Massachusetts and to 9.9 percent in the Gateway Cities.  Before the recession, there was a 1.6 percentage point gap between the Massachusetts and Gateway Cities’ unemployment rates. This gap expanded to 2.5 percentage points by January 2010 and remained unchanged in May 2011.

Employment of Gateway City Residents Declined Less in Gateway Cities

Digging down into the employment data, an interesting pattern emerges. Gateway Cities, as a whole, outperformed the state as a whole during the recession (see Table 2).  The number of employed residents declined 5.5 percent in the Gateway Cities from July 2008 to January 2010, compared to six percent for the state as a whole. Boston also outperformed the state, with a decline of 4.4 percent. From 2010 to 2011, employment recovered 2.6 percent in the Gateway Cities, compared to 2.5 percent for Massachusetts. As a result, from the peak in employment in July 2008 to May 2011, the number of employed residents declined three percent in the Gateway Cities, compared to 3.6 percent for Massachusetts. The cities and towns outside Boston and the Gateway Cities had a higher, 3.9 percent decline in the number of employed residents.

  

 Mapping Massachusetts communities provides additional insight into the regional differences in employment change during the recession. Indeed, this process highlights the fact that the data are U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates, based in part on metropolitan area data. Map 1 portrays the change in the number of employed residents from the peak of July 2008 to the trough of January 2010. To clarify, this data represents the number of residents in a community that are employed, NOT the number of jobs in a community. Gateway Cities are outlined in dark blue. Those cities and towns that had a smaller decline in employed residents than Massachusetts (or an increase in the number employed) are in yellow or green. Certain regional patterns emerge, including weakness in Southeastern Massachusetts and the Pioneer Valley, with the largest employment losses on Cape Cod, the Islands, and in the Berkshires. Of the Gateway Cities, Barnstable (-24 percent) and Pittsfield (-10 percent) had the steepest declines, followed by Fall River (-8 percent) and New Bedford (-6 percent).

Map 2 represents the turn-around period of January 2010 to May 2011 (the most recent data available). Some of the areas with the steepest declines in employed residents (Cape Cod, the Islands, Southeastern Massachusetts and the Pioneer Valley) also had the largest increases, exceeding the statewide recovery. Of the Gateway Cities, Salem and Lynn had the weakest recoveries (0.3 percent). The biggest increases in the number of employed residents were in Barnstable (10 percent) and in Springfield, Holyoke, Westfield and Chicopee (4 percent).

Map 3 reveals the change over the entire period, from July 2008 to May 2011. Communities in dark green have seen an increase in the number of employed residents. Of the Gateway Cities, small increases occurred in Springfield (0.3 percent) and Westfield (0.8 percent). The largest declines in the number of employed residents were in Barnstable (-16 percent) and Pittsfield (-8 percent).

Labor Force Changes Contribute to Widening Unemployment Gap

So, if the employment of Gateway City residents out-performed the remainder of the state, why did the gap in the unemployment rate between the Gateway Cities and Massachusetts widen from 1.6 percentage points to 2.5 percentage points during the recession?  The answer is that while the labor force declined in Massachusetts, it remained relatively unchanged in the Gateway Cities. From July 2008 to January 2010, the labor force contracted 1.6 percent in Massachusetts, but grew 0.1 percent in the Gateway Cities (see Chart 2 and Table 3). During the recovery (January 2010 to May 2011), the labor force increased 0.1 percent in all areas.

 

Declines in the labor force outside the Gateway Cities contributed to the reduction in unemployment in those areas, contributing to the gap in unemployment rates between the Gateway Cities and the remainder of the state.

What Is the Role of Age?

Age distribution is one possible cause for why the labor force remained steady in the Gateway Cities, even when there was a decline elsewhere. Gateway City residents are younger than the state as a whole. Areas with an older population are likely to see a shrinking labor force due to retirement, and cities with a higher number of young people contribute to labor force growth. As of the 2005-2009 American Community Survey, the median age of Massachusetts residents was 38.8. The median age exceeded the state in only six of the 24 Gateway Cities (Barnstable, Chicopee, Haverhill, Leominster, Pittsfield and Quincy). Indeed, of the eight Gateway Cities that experienced a labor force decline, four cities had a median age higher than the state.  Lawrence had the lowest median age (31.1), and the largest increase in the labor force (4.9 percent).

If indeed, the younger age profiles of many Gateway Cities played a factor in this outcome, then it highlights the importance of providing younger residents of Gateway Cities opportunities to increase their skills and employability.

While much of my work has been on housing and community development issues related to Boston, I am also interested in Massachusetts’ smaller industrial cities, which were instrumental to the state’s historical development. Indeed, they also play a crucial role in the future of the state. While some people focus on the relative decline of these cities and  consider them a drag on Massachusetts’ health and economy, I disagree—smaller cities are well placed to take advantage of the trend towards “smart growth”, and contain many assets, both human and physical, needed to advance the state’s economy. The Gateway Series will be an occasional posting on issues related to the 24 cities identified by the state at Gateway Municipalities, with a focus on the economy, housing and demographics.

I recently posted my newest work on Foreclosures for the Massachusetts Housing Partnership here.

The Massachusetts Housing Partnership has posted my most recent edition of the Foreclosure Monitor . In October 2008, 54 percent of distressed units (in foreclosure) were in Massachusetts' 24 Gateway Municipalities or Boston. By October 2010, these areas contained 49 percent of such units, in a shift to suburban and rural parts of the state.

This data and my recent foreclosure work has received additional coverage in the following media outlets:

The Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership has published my report  on Greater Boston families that have been sheltered by the state in motels. This report is a baseline report that provides demographics on families experiencing homeless. In addition, the report provides causes of homelessness for these families, as well as an examination of the families' prospects for success in gaining a sound economic footing within a year of being placed in apartments with the help of federal Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP). While the effort to rapidly re-house families is commendable, long-term success of this effort depends on subsidies of more than one year, as well as additional resources for families to become self-sustaining.

Media coverage of this report can be found at:

The Boston Herald (11/21/2010), "Lives in Peril as Housing Subsidy Faces Fed Cuts."

The Bay State Banner (11/18/2010), "Program Moves Homeless Families out of Motels."