Neighborhood · Ranked #56,048 of 84,120 nationally
East Oak Lane Eviction Risk: Lower
Tract 42091202402 ·
Montgomery County, PA · pop 4,723 · neighborhood within 0.8 mi
Tract 42091202402 sits in the East Oak Lane area of Montgomery County, PA, carrying an eviction-risk score of 3.6/10. Population here is 4,723. The severe-burden share is 28%, and it is the single best predictor in this model of a filing that actually reaches judgment.
Risk score
3.6
Lower
Confidence 80% · 1–10 scale
Household mix · 100 hh
Burdened renters 10%Stable renters 9%Owners 81%
Tract context
Occupied units1,853
Renter share19.1%
SVI overall0.42
Poverty rate7.3%
Median income$144,453
Percentile rank
Higher percentile = riskier than more peers.
Within neighborhood
50th percentile
#1 of 1 tracts In East Oak Lane
Moderate
Within county
36th percentile
#141 of 219 tracts In Montgomery County
Low
Within state
36th percentile
#2,199 of 3,445 tracts In Pennsylvania
Low
National
33th percentile
#56,048 of 84,120 tracts In U.S.
Low
Geographic context
Risk heat across Montgomery County and the region
Centroid at 40.0645, -75.1308 · click any tract to drill in
Why East Oak Lane scores 3.6
9 axes · 1 = landlord-friendly
Local political climate
State baseline
3.4
Regional political climate
2024 county presidential margin
6.3
State political climate
Pennsylvania legislature & governorship
3.4
Economic stress
7.3% poverty · this tract
1.8
Supply constraint
$1,451 rent vs county FMR
3.1
Rent control risk
State baseline
3.4
Eviction process difficulty
State law sets the calendar
5.0
Tenant organizing strength
State baseline
4.0
Housing court bias
State baseline
5.0
How East Oak Lane compares
Risk score vs. parent city, county, state.
CDC Social Vulnerability Index
SVI percentile: 42
CDC/ATSDR 2022. Higher = more vulnerable. National percentile across 84k tracts.
16%Socioeconomic
83%Household composition
79%Racial/ethnic minority
37%Housing & transportation
Historical context · 1930s redlining
HOLC grade: A: Best
This tract sits within an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s. Grade A meant wealthy, predominantly white neighborhoods favored for lending. These designations suppressed minority homeownership for generations and remain a documented predictor of present-day eviction filings and rent burden.
53%Grade A
40%Grade B
0%Grade C
6%Grade D · redlined
Source: Mapping Inequality (americanpanorama.org), 1935-1940 HOLC residential security maps, aggregated to 2020 census tracts by area share. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Eviction filings
Court-record eviction history
Court-validated eviction filings collected from county clerks and consolidated by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. Filing rate is filings per 100 renter households.1
Historic baseline (2000–2018)
295Total filings over 7 yrs
12.48%Avg annual filing rate
16.4%Peak (2003)
45Filings in 2006 (latest validated)
Filings by year2000 to 2006
Filings stayed roughly flat over the past 7 months.
Analysis
What drives eviction risk in East Oak Lane
Pulling hardest the other way is economic stress at 1.8/10. Against Montgomery County at 42.6%, 53% of renters here are cost-burdened.
Running hot, court filing pressure reads 7.7/10. Princeton's Eviction Lab logged 295 filings here across 7 tracked years.
On the softer side, supply constraint reads 3.1/10. It sits 0.7 points below the Montgomery County average of 4.3. Filings peaked in 2003 at 16.4% of renter households.
This ground was mapped A ("Best") on the 1930s HOLC security maps for Philadelphia. That grading determined who could get a mortgage, and its imprint on tenure and rent burden is still visible in the ACS data above. In a typical year about 12.5% of renter households face a filing.
That is riskier than roughly 33% of the 84,120 US census tracts in this model. At 19% renter-occupied this is predominantly owner territory, and comps have to be drawn from further out. On the CDC Social Vulnerability Index the tract reads 4.8/10, which tracks how hard a shock lands on the households already here.
Against average income of $144,453, annual rent is just 12%.
These are ACS 5-year estimates; the score moves when the ACS, court-record, or statute inputs behind it move.
Frequently asked
About tract 42091202402
Q1
What is the eviction-risk score for census tract 42091202402?
Census tract 42091202402 in the East Oak Lane neighborhood scores 3.6/10 (Lower tier). The Eviction Risk Score blends state law, county filing rates, parent-city politics, and tract-specific rent-to-income ratios + poverty signals.
Q2
What is the average rent in tract 42091202402?
Median gross rent is $1,451/month (ACS 5-year 2023, table B25064). 53% of renter households are cost-burdened.
Q3
What is the poverty rate in tract 42091202402?
7.3% of residents in tract 42091202402 live below the federal poverty line (ACS B17001, 2023). Population: 4,723.
Q4
How socially vulnerable is tract 42091202402?
CDC Social Vulnerability Index ranks this tract in the 42th percentile nationally. Sub-themes: socioeconomic 16th, household 83th, minority 79th, housing 37th.
Q5
Is tract 42091202402 considered part of East Oak Lane?
Yes. Per Census Bureau 2020 Block Assignment Files, the plurality of blocks in tract 42091202402 fall within East Oak Lane (neighborhood centroid within 0.8 miles, OSM data).
Q6
How many evictions are filed each year in tract 42091202402?
Princeton Eviction Lab recorded 295 eviction filings across 7 validated years in tract 42091202402 (2000-2018). The average annual filing rate is 12.48% of renter households, peaking at 16.4% in 2003. Source: Eviction Lab tract-validated 2024 release.
Q7
Was tract 42091202402 historically redlined?
Yes. This tract sits inside an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s, with a dominant grade of A. 6% of the tract's area was rated D ("Hazardous"), the redlined tier. HOLC redlining systematically denied mortgage credit to Black, immigrant, and working-class neighborhoods and remains a documented predictor of present-day eviction filings, rent burden, and homeownership gaps. Source: Mapping Inequality (americanpanorama.org), Robert K. Nelson et al.