10 STATE DEMOGRAPHICS AND PROJECT
IMPACTS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The GIS Services unit within the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning (OTP)
is responsible for developing and updating maps which depict the Title VI
populations of the Commonwealth. With MassDOT’s triennial Title VI Program
submissions, these maps are overlaid with MassDOT’s state and federal funded
transit projects with a three year look-back period to identify any potential
disparities in project distribution vis-à-vis Title VI population concentrations. In
the following sections of this chapter, those maps and narrative analyses are
presented.
Please note: The analysis of the distribution of FTA funds contained within this
chapter includes only project-related state and federal transit investments. For an
analysis of the distribution of state-managed FTA funds, please refer to Chapter
11.
ONLINE TITLE VI TOOL
MassDOT’s Office of Diversity and Civil Rights and the Office of Transportation
Planning are currently collaborating on the development of an online map-based
Title VI related application. The application is public-facing and available to all
who are interested. Its intended use is to inform MassDOT staff, consultants,
MPO/RPA staff, RTA staff, etc. of the Title VI demographics of any given area of
the Commonwealth to better inform public outreach strategies to promote
inclusivity and avoid barriers to public participation in MassDOT programs,
services, and activities. The current beta version of the tool, which is still in a
testing phase, can be accessed here:
http://services.massdot.state.ma.us/maptemplate/languagetracts/
The final version of the tool is meant to feature three (3) key components:
• The concentration of individuals with limited English proficiency
• Geographically-based contact information for stakeholder individuals and
organizations
• Accessible public meeting locations
At present, the tool features the first two key components (languages and
contacts). The third component (accessible meeting locations) is under
development. The source data for the language component is the same
information MassDOT draws upon for its LEP Four-Factor Analysis, such as US
Census data and American Community Survey data. The source data for the list of
available contacts is MassDOT’s own outreach database, combined with the
outreach databases of the MPOs/RPAs as well as any individuals or organizations
that have opted-in to receive MassDOT announcements. During 2013, ODCR
tasked the MPOs/RPAs with screening the entire list of registered not-for-profit
organizations in the Commonwealth to identify individuals and organizations not
currently included in MassDOT and/or MPO/RPA outreach that should be and that
represent a Title VI population(s). The result of this effort is a combined statewide
Title VI outreach list that is nearly 5,000 contacts strong.
The user of this application is envisioned as a recipient or subrecipient staffer or
consultant with public outreach responsibilities, both project-related and
statewide. This tool allows the user to select a part of the state (project locale,
potential public meeting location, transit service area, etc.) and be provided with
the three key pieces of information described above – languages other than
English present in the area and concentrations, contact information to as diverse
an array of individuals and community based organizations as can be identified in
the area that should be included in public outreach, and potential meeting
locations that have been confirmed as accessible (by MassDOT staff, consultant
staff, the staff of the Massachusetts Office on Disability, the staff of the
Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office, a regional Independent
Living Center covering the area, and/or a local Disability Commission) to
individuals with disabilities.
The incorporation of this tool in MassDOT and subrecipient public outreach
activities helps to ensure that Title VI populations are included in federally
assisted programs, services, and activities as they are being planned, rather than
relying only on analyzing federal funding distribution across Title VI populations
after-the-fact. By providing a tool that can be used to plan and achieve inclusive
outreach, the after-the-fact analysis becomes an important measure of
effectiveness of these strategies and any trends identified through it can help
MassDOT and subrecipients refine outreach strategies to reach all populations
across the Commonwealth.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE STATE
Appendix 10-A, 10-B, and 10-C contain maps that depict the demographic profile
of the State.
Please Note: for more detailed maps of concentrations of limited-Englishproficient populations by language, refer to Chapter 6.
TRANSIT PROJECTS INVESTMENTS AND TITLE VI POPULATIONS
Appendices 10-D, 10-E, and 10-F contain maps that depict the distribution of
transit project investments across Title VI populations statewide. Below is an
analysis of that data to identify any disparities in funding distributions across
Minority, Low-Income, and limited-English-proficient populations.
Further analysis will need to be done to better identify the types of transit
projects that could provide a benefit system-wide.
Future analysis may include such variables as:
• Average vehicle age
• Project type
• Vehicle distribution
• Expenditures
• Project cost
The following types of transit projects were excluded from analysis because they
are considered demand response:
• Para Transit
• Van/minibus
• MAP-21
Analysis of Transit Project Distribution across Minority and
Low-Income Populations
Overall during the years of 2011 through 2013, over 92.1% of state and municipal
transit projects geographically intersected low-income and/or minority census
block groups. Statewide over 91.0% of all low-income and/or minority block
groups were intersected by transit projects.
Because the majority of transit projects are geographically spread out over the
entire transit system, a resulting majority of low-income and/or minority census
block groups are intersected by the systemwide transit projects. For example, the
replacement of buses on a transit system affects the entire transit network, and
thus any low-income and/or minority census block groups along the bus routes.
Altogether there were only two low-income and/or minority census block groups
that did not intersect an urban area. Overall systemwide transit projects in
expanded transportation urbanized areas can account for the high impact
between transit projects and low-income and/or minority census block groups.
Therefore, the preliminary analysis shows that low-income and minority block
groups are served well by the existing transit projects over the past 3 years. This is
especially true in the expanded transportation urbanized areas given that the
block groups are predominantly located in urban areas.
Analysis of Transit Project Distribution across Limited
English Proficient Populations
Overall during the years of 2011 through 2013 over 90.5% of state and municipal
transit projects geographically intersected limited-English proficiency low-income
census block groups. Statewide over 93.3% of all limited-English-proficiency block
groups were intersected by transit projects.
Because the majority of transit projects are geographically spread out over the
entire transit system, a resulting majority of limited-English-proficiency block
groups are intersected by the system wide transit projects, especially in the
expanded transportation urban areas. For example, the replacement of buses on
a transit system geographically affects the entire transit network, and thus any
limited-English-proficiency block groups along the bus routes.
Altogether there was only one limited-English-proficiency block group that did
not intersect an urban area. Overall systemwide transit projects in expanded
transportation urbanized areas can account for the high impact between transit
projects and limited-English-proficiency block groups.
Therefore, the preliminary analysis shows that limited-English-proficiency block
groups are served well by the existing transit projects over the past 3 years. This is
especially true in the expanded transportation urbanized areas given that the
block groups are predominantly located in urban areas.
DISPARATE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following disparate impact analysis was produced by MassDOT’s Office of
Transportation Planning in June 2014. It is intended to identify any disparities in
the distribution of impacts of transit investments across Title VI populations since
MassDOT’s last triennial Title VI Program submission to FTA in 2011.
Federal Transit Program Projects:
Disparate Impact Analysis on Title VI
Populations in Massachusetts
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
June 2014
TITLE VI DISPARATE IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FEDERAL
TRANSIT PROJECTS IN MASSACHUSETTS
BACKGROUND
As a recipient of federal funds, as well as a distributor of funds to sub recipients
such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), the Massachusetts
Department of Transportation (MassDOT) complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VI) in all of its work. Title VI prohibits discrimination based upon
race, color, and national origin. Specifically, 42 USC 2000 states that “No person
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.”
PHASE I
On March 31, 2014, MassDOT submitted to FTA a collection of maps depicting the
distribution of FTA Program funded transportation projects for the previous three
years (January 2011-December 2013). That research concluded that there was
equitable access to services in areas of high Limited English Proficiency (LEP), high
minority areas and low income areas. The summed analysis reads as follows:
“The preliminary analysis shows that limited English proficiency block groups are
served well by the existing transit projects over the past 3 years. This is especially
true in the expanded transportation urbanized areas given that the block groups
are predominantly located in urban areas.’ ‘Overall system wide transit projects in
expanded transportation urbanized areas can account for the high impact
between transit projects and low income and/or minority census block groups.”
The FTA subsequently asked for a Disparate Impact Analysis:
“Submit an analysis of impacts identified in the Demographic Maps that
identifies any disparate impacts on the basis of race, color, or national
origin. If such disparate impact exists, determine whether there is a
substantial legitimate justification for the policy that resulted in the
disparate impacts, and if there are alternatives that could be employed that
would have a less discriminatory impact (Chapter V, 2, e).”
PHASE II ANALYSIS
In order to understand whether there had been any disparate impacts to minority
populations, a second phase of analysis was conducted. The FTA Title VI
guidelines define Disparate Impact as an impact that disproportionately affects
members of a group identified by race, color, or national origin - often resulting
from what might appear to be a neutral policy or practice. This Title VI
investigation uses a standard “20% below” threshold for the criterion of defining
where a disparate impact may occur. Specifically, this means that service
provided to a subject population and area must be less than 80% of the larger
subject population and area being analyzed to be considered as a potentially
significant – and potentially problematic – difference in service provision. In
places where this criterion is clearly exceeded in the initial analysis (falling
appreciably below the threshold), other factors then need to be examined to
determine if a disparate impact has indeed occurred.
METHODOLOGY
A GIS-based approach was used in the disparate impact analysis to compare the
distribution of benefits on all the FTA projects received by the minority/nonminority populations. For this analysis, census blocks were used to gather the
minority data. The subject populations and areas were established with a onequarter mile buffer around FTA projects and the comparative populations and
areas were the municipalities in which the projects were located. A quarter mile
buffer was used to represent a reasonable walking distance to a transit route and
as such defined the areas of service provision.
This screening analysis aims to identify potential disparate impacts by comparing
the average percentage of minority populations in defined service areas with the
overall percentage of minority population in each municipality where a transit
project(s) was funded. The service area was analyzed for every funded route
during the look back period (2011-2013), and the percentage minority population
was calculated by census block along the route. All census blocks that were either
fully covered or partially covered by a buffer zone were included in the analysis.
The percentage of minority population served along a route(s) was then
compared to the overall percentage of the minority population within the
municipality where the funded transit projects were located.
The attached table (Table 1) lists the analysis results for each municipality in the
Commonwealth where at least one transit project was funded during the look
back period. For comparison purposes, the table also lists the total population,
total Title VI-defined minority population, and percentage minority population for
all Massachusetts municipalities, regardless of funding status or history. If a
municipality has no threshold-related statistics listed in the table (shown in the
three right-most columns), it simply means that it had no transit projects funded
during the last three years, and not necessarily that there have been no transit
projects funded previously or that no transit services exist.
As an example in the table, 53% of Boston’s population is minority – so the “20%
below” threshold is 80% of 53%, which is 42.4%. The area defined by the quarter
mile buffer of each funded transit route in the city serves a population with an
average of 50% minorities. That figure is above the threshold of 42.4% for
Boston, so this data shows that there is no disparate impact in Boston.
In terms of identifying potential areas of disparate impact in the table, if a
municipality is listed with a negative percentage point differential between the
percent minority population served versus the threshold minority percentage for
the entire municipality, that municipality does not meet the threshold. These
cases are highlighted in various shades of red. However, there are several cases
where the point differential can be considered insignificant (less than a five
percentage point difference).
In the few cases where the differential equaled or exceeded five percentage
points, we considered that a significant difference and examined each situation to
see if there were other factors that contribute to the result when evaluating
potential disparate impact.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
For most all municipalities in the Commonwealth, the “20% below” threshold was
met (or barely exceeded and the percentage point differential not considered
significant), so overall there appears to be a balanced program across the state
with no clear disparate impacts.
In a further evaluation of instances where the threshold was not met and the
significantly exceeded (5 percentage point or more differential), the following
municipalities were reviewed to help understand if there was an actual disparate
impact, or some other reasonable explanation for the results. These cases are
listed below:
Chelsea: The threshold minority population percentage for Chelsea is 59.8% while
the average percent minority population for census blocks within the FTA project
buffer area is 54.8% minority. This average percent minority population is 5
percentage points below Chelsea’s threshold used to identify potential disparate
impacts. The buffer area in Chelsea, however, contains many census blocks of
industrial areas that have very little or no population – and accordingly zero
percent minority as well. Due to the method of calculation used in the screening
analysis, these census blocks are treated equally with higher population blocks
when generating the buffer area average, so all the zero minority percentages in
the industrial areas are skewing the true average. Together, the extensiveness of
the buffer area in Chelsea, the presence of significant industrial land, and the fact
that the actual percent minority population within the buffer area (when not
counting the unpopulated industrial areas) is above 70% – all indicate that a
disparate impact is not occurring.
Norfolk: The threshold minority population percentage for Norfolk is 12.4% while
the average percent minority population for census blocks within the FTA project
buffer area is 5.8% minority. This average percent minority population is 6.6
percentage points below Norfolk’s threshold used to identify potential disparate
impacts. A large proportion of Norfolk’s minority population, however, lives at the
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Norfolk. Of the 1,734 minorities living in
all of Norfolk, 1,106 minorities (63.8%) reside in the 2 census blocks housing this
prison – and accordingly do not have access to transit. Therefore, in the case of
Norfolk, the municipal-wide minority population and comparison threshold is not
representative of the minority population that is able to use transit.
Sherborn: The threshold minority population percentage for Sherborn is 5.3%
while the average percent minority population for census blocks within the FTA
project buffer area is 0.0% minority. This average percent minority population is
5.3 percentage points below Sherborn’s threshold used to identify potential
disparate impacts. Sherborn is not currently served by any transit services.
However, a small area (less than 2 acres) falls within the buffer area of a bus route
in an adjacent municipality (which is counted in the screening analysis). This small
area is not populated. Therefore, the potential disparate impact identified in
Sherborn can be discounted.
Shirley: The threshold minority population percentage for Shirley is 16.3% while
the average percent minority population for census blocks within the FTA project
buffer area is 8.6% minority. This average percent minority population is 7.8
percentage points below Shirley’s threshold used to identify potential disparate
impacts. A large proportion of Shirley’s minority population, however, lives at the
Massachusetts Correctional Institution - Shirley. Of the 1,472 minorities living in
all of Shirley, 832 minorities (56.5%) reside in the census block housing this prison
– and accordingly do not have access to transit. Therefore, in the case of Shirley,
the municipal-wide minority population and comparison threshold is not
representative of the minority population that is able to use transit.
Westborough: The threshold minority population percentage for Westborough is
19.9% while the average percent minority population for census blocks within the
FTA project buffer area is 13.8% minority. This average percent minority
population is 6.1 percentage points below Westborough’s threshold used to
identify potential disparate impacts. The buffer area is almost entirely comprised
of land surrounding the right of way of the Framingham/Worcester Line of the
MBTA’s Commuter Rail. There is one station in Westborough, but the population
in the buffer area around this station (which functions primarily as a park-and-ride
station and not a walk-in station) is minuscule and much of the land is currently a
parking lot. In this light, the underrepresentation of minorities in the
Westborough buffer area is not a cause for concern. Rather, only negative
impacts can be expected from proximity to Commuter Rail tracks so the
underrepresentation of minorities in this area should not be considered a
disparate impact.
After reviewing all percentages of minority populations near transit service across
the Commonwealth, there is no apparent system wide issue producing disparate
impacts. In conclusion, this analysis indicates an equitable distribution of FTA
funds as well as a lack of disproportionate benefits and burdens of the transit
projects those funds support across Title VI populations in the Commonwealth.
Table 1 - Disparate Impact Analysis Data
Municipality
Abington
Acton
Acushnet
Adams
Agawam
Alford
Amesbury
Amherst
Andover
Aquinnah
Arlington
Ashburnham
Ashby
Ashfield
Ashland
Athol
Attleboro
Auburn
Avon
Ayer
Barnstable
Barre
Becket
Bedford
Belchertown
Bellingham
Belmont
Berkley
Berlin
Bernardston
Beverly
Billerica
Blackstone
Blandford
Bolton
Boston
Bourne
Boxborough
Boxford
Boylston
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
15,985
21,924
10,303
8,485
28,438
494
16,283
37,819
33,201
311
42,844
6,081
3,074
1,737
16,593
11,584
43,593
16,188
4,356
7,427
45,193
5,398
1,779
13,320
14,649
16,332
24,729
6,411
2,866
2,129
39,502
40,243
9,026
1,233
4,897
617,594
19,754
4,996
7,965
4,355
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
1,368
5,369
384
319
2,151
13
804
10,102
5,503
137
7,040
368
120
87
3,063
780
6,985
1,106
741
1,382
5,681
266
80
2,136
1,145
1,347
4,611
286
151
59
3,397
4,675
471
34
320
327,282
1,493
1,056
395
334
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
Municipality- municipality
wide Title VI (80% of total
Minority
municipal-wide
Population
minority
Percentage
percentage)
8.6%
24.5%
19.6%
3.7%
3.0%
3.8%
3.0%
7.6%
6.1%
2.6%
4.9%
4.0%
26.7%
21.4%
16.6%
13.3%
44.1%
35.2%
16.4%
13.1%
6.1%
3.9%
5.0%
18.5%
14.8%
6.7%
5.4%
16.0%
12.8%
6.8%
5.5%
17.0%
18.6%
14.9%
12.6%
4.9%
4.5%
16.0%
12.8%
7.8%
6.3%
8.2%
18.6%
14.9%
4.5%
5.3%
4.2%
2.8%
2.2%
8.6%
6.9%
11.6%
9.3%
5.2%
2.8%
6.5%
53.0%
42.4%
7.6%
21.1%
16.9%
5.0%
7.7%
6.1%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
17.7%
6.8%
4.7%
7.4%
-1.9%
3.8%
1.7%
1.4%
4.6%
24.2%
17.3%
35.0%
15.5%
0.7%
2.8%
4.0%
-0.2%
2.4%
17.8%
7.6%
17.7%
10.1%
3.1%
2.2%
4.9%
4.6%
15.2%
0.3%
15.9%
9.6%
3.1%
3.4%
17.8%
2.8%
3.8%
3.0%
9.5%
12.2%
-0.4%
0.8%
2.7%
2.9%
50.0%
7.6%
13.6%
-3.3%
12.2%
6.1%
Municipality
Braintree
Brewster
Bridgewater
Brimfield
Brockton
Brookfield
Brookline
Buckland
Burlington
Cambridge
Canton
Carlisle
Carver
Charlemont
Charlton
Chatham
Chelmsford
Chelsea
Cheshire
Chester
Chesterfield
Chicopee
Chilmark
Clarksburg
Clinton
Cohasset
Colrain
Concord
Conway
Cummington
Dalton
Danvers
Dartmouth
Dedham
Deerfield
Dennis
Dighton
Douglas
Dover
Dracut
Dudley
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
35,744
9,820
26,563
3,609
93,810
3,390
58,732
1,902
24,498
105,162
21,561
4,852
11,509
1,266
12,981
6,125
33,802
35,177
3,235
1,337
1,222
55,298
866
1,702
13,606
7,542
1,671
17,668
1,897
872
6,756
26,493
34,032
24,729
5,125
14,207
7,086
8,471
5,589
29,457
11,390
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
5,273
450
2,941
186
53,542
125
15,692
73
5,106
39,903
3,610
595
587
58
748
314
4,347
26,295
96
24
33
11,360
36
34
2,722
288
70
2,266
88
28
287
1,654
3,230
3,682
344
1,090
317
397
490
3,492
708
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
Municipality- municipality
wide Title VI (80% of total
Minority
municipal-wide
Population
minority
Percentage
percentage)
14.8%
4.6%
11.1%
5.2%
57.1%
3.7%
2.9%
26.7%
21.4%
3.8%
3.1%
20.8%
16.7%
37.9%
30.4%
16.7%
12.3%
9.8%
5.1%
4.6%
3.7%
5.8%
5.1%
12.9%
10.3%
74.8%
59.8%
3.0%
2.4%
1.8%
2.7%
20.5%
16.4%
4.2%
2.0%
1.6%
20.0%
16.0%
3.8%
3.1%
4.2%
12.8%
10.3%
4.6%
3.2%
4.2%
3.4%
6.2%
5.0%
9.5%
7.6%
14.9%
11.9%
6.7%
5.4%
7.7%
4.5%
3.6%
4.7%
8.8%
11.9%
9.5%
6.2%
5.0%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
3.5%
22.3%
5.4%
18.3%
28.7%
0.6%
0.9%
2.3%
1.7%
-1.6%
9.0%
-0.8%
7.1%
3.5%
13.3%
54.8%
2.2%
3.0%
-5.0%
-0.2%
16.4%
-0.1%
1.4%
18.5%
0.4%
-0.2%
2.5%
-2.6%
8.2%
-2.0%
4.4%
6.7%
8.5%
15.5%
8.0%
1.0%
1.7%
0.9%
3.6%
2.7%
4.0%
0.5%
12.1%
11.3%
2.6%
6.4%
Municipality
Dunstable
Duxbury
East Bridgewater
East Brookfield
East Longmeadow
Eastham
Easthampton
Easton
Edgartown
Egremont
Erving
Essex
Everett
Fairhaven
Fall River
Falmouth
Fitchburg
Florida
Foxborough
Framingham
Franklin
Freetown
Gardner
Georgetown
Gill
Gloucester
Goshen
Gosnold
Grafton
Granby
Granville
Great Barrington
Greenfield
Groton
Groveland
Hadley
Halifax
Hamilton
Hampden
Hancock
Hanover
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
3,179
15,059
13,794
2,183
15,720
4,956
16,053
23,112
4,067
1,225
1,800
3,504
41,667
15,873
88,857
31,531
40,318
752
16,865
68,318
31,635
8,870
20,228
8,183
1,500
28,789
1,054
75
17,765
6,240
1,566
7,104
17,456
10,646
6,459
5,250
7,518
7,764
5,139
717
13,879
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
Minority
Municipality- municipality
(including
wide Title VI (80% of total
white
Minority
municipal-wide
Hispanic)
Population
minority
Population
Percentage
percentage)
186
5.9%
4.7%
560
3.7%
790
5.7%
104
4.8%
3.8%
1,108
7.0%
5.6%
206
4.2%
3.3%
1,376
8.6%
2,327
10.1%
517
12.7%
54
4.4%
72
4.0%
3.2%
135
3.9%
3.1%
19,351
46.4%
37.2%
839
5.3%
4.2%
14,750
16.6%
13.3%
2,919
9.3%
12,816
31.8%
25.4%
26
3.5%
1,400
8.3%
23,693
34.7%
27.7%
2,709
8.6%
6.9%
390
4.4%
3.5%
2,633
13.0%
10.4%
351
4.3%
61
4.1%
3.3%
1,689
5.9%
4.7%
32
3.0%
3
4.0%
3.2%
2,288
12.9%
10.3%
299
4.8%
3.8%
58
3.7%
904
12.7%
10.2%
1,781
10.2%
8.2%
682
6.4%
5.1%
229
3.5%
2.8%
555
10.6%
8.5%
282
3.8%
676
8.7%
7.0%
231
4.5%
31
4.3%
579
4.2%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
4.6%
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
-0.1%
2.8%
10.2%
9.4%
-1.0%
4.5%
6.1%
2.9%
3.4%
44.8%
3.6%
14.4%
-0.3%
0.3%
7.6%
-0.7%
1.2%
32.1%
6.7%
35.9%
9.4%
7.2%
10.2%
8.2%
2.6%
3.7%
-0.2%
6.6%
5.3%
3.3%
0.6%
0.0%
12.0%
6.6%
-3.2%
1.7%
2.8%
13.6%
9.6%
8.2%
5.8%
14.9%
3.4%
1.5%
3.1%
2.9%
6.4%
5.1%
-1.8%
Municipality
Hanson
Hardwick
Harvard
Harwich
Hatfield
Haverhill
Hawley
Heath
Hingham
Hinsdale
Holbrook
Holden
Holland
Holliston
Holyoke
Hopedale
Hopkinton
Hubbardston
Hudson
Hull
Huntington
Ipswich
Kingston
Lakeville
Lancaster
Lanesborough
Lawrence
Lee
Leicester
Lenox
Leominster
Leverett
Lexington
Leyden
Lincoln
Littleton
Longmeadow
Lowell
Ludlow
Lunenburg
Lynn
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
10,209
2,990
6,520
12,243
3,279
60,879
337
706
22,157
2,032
10,791
17,346
2,481
13,547
39,880
5,911
14,925
4,382
19,063
10,293
2,180
13,175
12,629
10,602
8,055
3,091
76,377
5,943
10,970
5,025
40,759
1,851
31,394
711
6,362
8,924
15,784
106,519
21,103
10,086
90,329
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
424
125
852
896
111
12,485
14
26
1,022
56
2,070
1,260
123
902
21,229
350
1,238
157
2,118
591
90
704
598
415
1,487
128
60,740
490
1,009
354
10,014
161
8,256
18
1,096
685
1,462
50,239
2,140
635
47,360
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
Municipality- municipality
wide Title VI (80% of total
Minority
municipal-wide
Population
minority
Percentage
percentage)
4.2%
4.2%
13.1%
7.3%
3.4%
2.7%
20.5%
16.4%
4.2%
3.7%
4.6%
2.8%
2.2%
19.2%
7.3%
5.8%
5.0%
6.7%
5.3%
53.2%
42.6%
5.9%
8.3%
6.6%
3.6%
11.1%
5.7%
4.1%
5.3%
4.3%
4.7%
3.8%
3.9%
3.1%
18.5%
14.8%
4.1%
3.3%
79.5%
63.6%
8.2%
6.6%
9.2%
7.4%
7.0%
5.6%
24.6%
19.7%
8.7%
7.0%
26.3%
21.0%
2.5%
17.2%
13.8%
7.7%
6.1%
9.3%
7.4%
47.2%
37.7%
10.1%
8.1%
6.3%
5.0%
52.4%
41.9%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
1.6%
19.8%
-1.1%
3.4%
3.9%
1.7%
9.2%
3.4%
7.9%
44.7%
2.6%
2.1%
6.3%
-0.4%
7.3%
2.9%
2.6%
21.1%
4.1%
71.8%
8.5%
11.6%
11.3%
22.7%
3.9%
23.7%
3.1%
-0.9%
-0.6%
6.3%
0.8%
8.2%
1.9%
4.3%
5.7%
3.0%
-3.1%
2.6%
17.9%
7.2%
7.8%
41.4%
9.5%
13.4%
45.2%
4.1%
1.1%
0.4%
3.7%
1.4%
8.4%
3.2%
Municipality
Lynnfield
Malden
Manchester
Mansfield
Marblehead
Marion
Marlborough
Marshfield
Mashpee
Mattapoisett
Maynard
Medfield
Medford
Medway
Melrose
Mendon
Merrimac
Methuen
Middleborough
Middlefield
Middleton
Milford
Millbury
Millis
Millville
Milton
Monroe
Monson
Montague
Monterey
Montgomery
Mount Washington
Nahant
Nantucket
Natick
Needham
New Ashford
New Bedford
New Braintree
New Marlborough
New Salem
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
11,596
59,450
5,136
23,184
19,808
4,907
38,499
25,132
14,006
6,045
10,106
12,024
56,173
12,752
26,983
5,839
6,338
47,255
23,116
521
8,987
27,999
13,261
7,891
3,190
27,003
121
8,560
8,437
961
838
167
3,410
10,172
33,006
28,886
228
95,072
999
1,509
990
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
758
28,239
184
2,285
990
398
9,546
1,005
1,725
275
996
731
13,384
828
2,822
208
271
11,868
1,386
16
1,142
4,895
952
576
117
6,514
6
388
816
23
33
4
153
1,980
4,817
3,156
14
30,474
31
70
46
Municipalitywide Title VI
Minority
Population
Percentage
6.5%
47.5%
3.6%
9.9%
5.0%
8.1%
24.8%
4.0%
12.3%
4.5%
9.9%
6.1%
23.8%
6.5%
10.5%
3.6%
4.3%
25.1%
6.0%
3.1%
12.7%
17.5%
7.2%
7.3%
3.7%
24.1%
5.0%
4.5%
9.7%
2.4%
3.9%
2.4%
4.5%
19.5%
14.6%
10.9%
6.1%
32.1%
3.1%
4.6%
4.6%
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
municipality
(80% of total
municipal-wide
minority
percentage)
5.2%
38.0%
2.9%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
3.6%
43.1%
6.0%
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
-1.7%
5.1%
3.1%
4.0%
5.9%
1.9%
19.8%
30.1%
10.3%
19.1%
21.0%
2.0%
8.4%
10.6%
2.2%
3.4%
20.1%
4.8%
3.9%
23.1%
8.1%
0.5%
3.0%
3.3%
14.0%
5.7%
23.2%
6.8%
9.2%
1.1%
19.3%
24.1%
4.8%
3.6%
7.7%
2.6%
8.6%
-1.0%
0.8%
3.6%
3.2%
-0.4%
11.7%
8.7%
13.6%
12.4%
1.9%
3.7%
25.6%
27.5%
1.9%
Municipality
Newbury
Newburyport
Newton
Norfolk
North Adams
North Andover
North Attleborough
North Brookfield
North Reading
Northampton
Northborough
Northbridge
Northfield
Norton
Norwell
Norwood
Oak Bluffs
Oakham
Orange
Orleans
Otis
Oxford
Palmer
Paxton
Peabody
Pelham
Pembroke
Pepperell
Peru
Petersham
Phillipston
Pittsfield
Plainfield
Plainville
Plymouth
Plympton
Princeton
Provincetown
Quincy
Randolph
Raynham
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
6,666
17,416
85,146
11,227
13,708
28,352
28,712
4,680
14,892
28,549
14,155
15,707
3,032
19,031
10,506
28,602
4,527
1,902
7,839
5,890
1,612
13,709
12,140
4,806
51,251
1,321
17,837
11,497
847
1,234
1,682
44,737
648
8,264
56,468
2,820
3,413
2,942
92,271
32,112
13,383
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
198
842
17,345
1,734
1,210
3,997
2,583
198
901
4,519
1,995
987
117
1,362
495
4,960
790
83
530
260
53
918
694
361
6,317
112
699
551
18
30
89
6,300
31
573
4,230
112
136
339
31,823
19,559
1,064
Municipalitywide Title VI
Minority
Population
Percentage
3.0%
4.8%
20.4%
15.4%
8.8%
14.1%
9.0%
4.2%
6.1%
15.8%
14.1%
6.3%
3.9%
7.2%
4.7%
17.3%
17.5%
4.4%
6.8%
4.4%
3.3%
6.7%
5.7%
7.5%
12.3%
8.5%
3.9%
4.8%
2.1%
2.4%
5.3%
14.1%
4.8%
6.9%
7.5%
4.0%
4.0%
11.5%
34.5%
60.9%
8.0%
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
municipality
(80% of total
municipal-wide
minority
percentage)
2.4%
3.9%
16.3%
12.4%
7.1%
11.3%
7.2%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
5.8%
5.6%
19.1%
5.8%
7.9%
14.8%
9.2%
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
3.5%
1.8%
2.8%
-6.6%
0.8%
3.5%
2.0%
12.7%
11.3%
12.8%
13.9%
0.2%
2.7%
3.1%
4.7%
1.6%
5.4%
8.8%
3.4%
5.4%
4.6%
6.0%
9.9%
6.8%
4.4%
8.3%
7.6%
14.6%
15.6%
-0.9%
3.7%
1.6%
4.8%
8.8%
3.8%
5.5%
1.6%
4.2%
11.3%
3.4%
14.4%
-0.9%
3.1%
5.5%
7.5%
2.0%
3.2%
0.0%
-3.2%
27.6%
29.7%
2.1%
6.4%
11.7%
5.3%
Municipality
Reading
Rehoboth
Revere
Richmond
Rochester
Rockland
Rockport
Rowe
Rowley
Royalston
Russell
Rutland
Salem
Salisbury
Sandisfield
Sandwich
Saugus
Savoy
Scituate
Seekonk
Sharon
Sheffield
Shelburne
Sherborn
Shirley
Shrewsbury
Shutesbury
Somerset
Somerville
South Hadley
Southampton
Southborough
Southbridge
Southwick
Spencer
Springfield
Sterling
Stockbridge
Stoneham
Stoughton
Stow
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
24,747
11,608
51,755
1,475
5,232
17,489
6,952
393
5,856
1,258
1,775
7,973
41,340
8,283
915
20,675
26,628
692
18,133
13,722
17,612
3,257
1,893
4,119
7,211
35,608
1,771
18,165
75,754
17,514
5,792
9,767
16,719
9,502
11,688
153,060
7,808
1,947
21,437
26,962
6,590
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
1,870
524
19,456
51
259
1,610
286
13
196
55
74
463
9,963
399
40
858
2,768
48
856
824
3,341
187
86
274
1,472
8,074
176
610
23,395
2,206
199
1,362
5,254
474
627
96,812
367
121
2,033
5,822
511
Municipalitywide Title VI
Minority
Population
Percentage
7.6%
4.5%
37.6%
3.5%
5.0%
9.2%
4.1%
3.3%
3.3%
4.4%
4.2%
5.8%
24.1%
4.8%
4.4%
4.1%
10.4%
6.9%
4.7%
6.0%
19.0%
5.7%
4.5%
6.7%
20.4%
22.7%
9.9%
3.4%
30.9%
12.6%
3.4%
13.9%
31.4%
5.0%
5.4%
63.3%
4.7%
6.2%
9.5%
21.6%
7.8%
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
municipality
(80% of total
municipal-wide
minority
percentage)
6.0%
3.6%
30.1%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
8.4%
3.4%
29.2%
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
2.4%
-0.2%
-0.9%
3.3%
3.8%
0.5%
2.7%
0.8%
-1.9%
19.3%
3.9%
20.3%
7.0%
1.1%
3.2%
8.3%
10.5%
2.2%
4.8%
5.9%
1.1%
3.6%
5.3%
16.3%
18.1%
6.1%
0.0%
8.6%
17.2%
2.5%
-5.3%
-7.8%
-1.0%
2.7%
24.7%
10.1%
2.7%
11.2%
3.6%
28.1%
10.7%
2.9%
15.5%
0.9%
3.4%
0.6%
0.2%
4.4%
4.3%
50.6%
3.8%
5.0%
7.6%
9.5%
56.2%
0.4%
6.4%
9.5%
5.2%
5.6%
-3.4%
1.4%
1.9%
Municipality
Sturbridge
Sudbury
Sunderland
Sutton
Swampscott
Swansea
Taunton
Templeton
Tewksbury
Tisbury
Tolland
Topsfield
Townsend
Truro
Tyngsborough
Tyringham
Upton
Uxbridge
Wakefield
Wales
Walpole
Waltham
Ware
Wareham
Warren
Warwick
Washington
Watertown
Wayland
Webster
Wellesley
Wellfleet
Wendell
Wenham
West Boylston
West Bridgewater
West Brookfield
West Newbury
West Springfield
West Stockbridge
West Tisbury
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
9,268
17,659
3,684
8,963
13,787
15,865
55,874
8,013
28,961
3,949
485
6,085
8,926
2,003
11,292
327
7,542
13,457
24,932
1,838
24,070
60,632
9,872
21,822
5,135
780
538
31,915
12,994
16,767
27,982
2,750
848
4,875
7,669
6,916
3,701
4,235
28,391
1,306
2,740
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
603
1,880
566
359
963
578
8,653
357
2,075
615
26
283
420
120
1,055
9
437
701
1,751
77
2,222
18,954
771
3,228
242
26
12
5,850
1,912
2,109
4,921
115
44
268
852
440
152
156
5,085
56
162
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
Municipality- municipality
wide Title VI (80% of total
Minority
municipal-wide
Population
minority
Percentage
percentage)
6.5%
10.6%
15.4%
12.3%
4.0%
7.0%
5.6%
3.6%
2.9%
15.5%
12.4%
4.5%
3.6%
7.2%
5.7%
15.6%
5.4%
4.7%
4.7%
6.0%
9.3%
7.5%
2.8%
5.8%
5.2%
7.0%
5.6%
4.2%
9.2%
7.4%
31.3%
25.0%
7.8%
6.2%
14.8%
4.7%
3.3%
2.2%
18.3%
14.7%
14.7%
11.8%
12.6%
10.1%
17.6%
14.1%
4.2%
5.2%
4.2%
5.5%
4.4%
11.1%
8.9%
6.4%
4.1%
3.7%
17.9%
14.3%
4.3%
3.4%
5.9%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
17.8%
5.5%
6.7%
4.4%
18.0%
4.1%
6.9%
1.1%
1.5%
5.6%
0.5%
1.1%
11.7%
4.2%
6.3%
0.7%
8.1%
30.4%
7.0%
0.7%
5.4%
0.8%
16.5%
13.0%
17.5%
13.9%
1.8%
1.3%
7.4%
-0.2%
6.1%
4.5%
7.3%
1.9%
0.1%
-1.6%
16.8%
1.3%
2.4%
-2.2%
Municipality
Westborough
Westfield
Westford
Westhampton
Westminster
Weston
Westport
Westwood
Weymouth
Whately
Whitman
Wilbraham
Williamsburg
Williamstown
Wilmington
Winchendon
Winchester
Windsor
Winthrop
Woburn
Worcester
Worthington
Wrentham
Yarmouth
Total
18,272
41,094
21,951
1,607
7,277
11,261
15,532
14,618
53,743
1,496
14,489
14,219
2,482
7,754
22,325
10,300
21,374
899
17,497
38,120
181,045
1,156
10,955
23,793
Minority
(including
white
Hispanic)
Population
4,549
4,764
3,526
49
409
1,868
476
1,237
6,379
56
886
1,111
113
1,167
1,725
824
3,065
38
2,011
6,990
73,231
44
414
2,095
Municipalitywide Title VI
Minority
Population
Percentage
24.9%
11.6%
16.1%
3.0%
5.6%
16.6%
3.1%
8.5%
11.9%
3.7%
6.1%
7.8%
4.6%
15.1%
7.7%
8.0%
14.3%
4.2%
11.5%
18.3%
40.4%
3.8%
3.8%
8.8%
6,547,629
1,562,829
23.87%
2010 U.S.
Census
Population
"20% Below"
Threshold to
meet, by
municipality
(80% of total
municipal-wide
minority
percentage)
19.9%
9.3%
12.9%
Average Percentage
Minority Population of
all block groups within
1/4mi Transit Project
Buffer Area
13.8%
15.5%
18.1%
Percentage
point
differential:
Buffer area vs.
Threshold
-6.2%
6.2%
5.3%
4.5%
13.3%
2.5%
6.8%
8.3%
18.2%
3.9%
10.6%
3.8%
5.0%
1.4%
3.8%
3.0%
6.6%
3.6%
6.3%
3.6%
12.0%
6.2%
6.4%
11.5%
9.3%
4.5%
17.2%
7.7%
8.7%
12.4%
3.1%
0.8%
5.2%
1.5%
2.3%
0.9%
9.2%
14.7%
32.4%
9.9%
16.6%
35.3%
0.7%
1.9%
3.0%