Skip to content
Neighborhood · Ranked #1 of 84,120 nationally

Walker Eviction Risk: High , Bell

Tract 06037534404 · Los Angeles, CA · pop 3,244 · neighborhood within 1.4 mi

With a score of 9.9/10, tract 06037534404 in the Walker area of Cudahy, CA reads high for landlord eviction risk. It is home to 3,244 residents. The score leans hardest on tenant-organizing strength at 9.9/10.

Risk score
9.9
High
Confidence 100% · 1–10 scale
Household mix · 100 hh
Burdened renters 33% Stable renters 41% Owners 26%
Tract context
Occupied units911
Renter share73.1%
SVI overall0.93
Poverty rate20.7%
Median income$54,063

Percentile rank

Higher percentile = riskier than more peers.
Within neighborhood
67 th percentile
Rank, 67th percentileLowHigh
#8 of 22 tracts In Walker
Elevated
Within parent city
60 th percentile
Rank, 60th percentileLowHigh
#3 of 6 tracts In Bell
Elevated
Within county
74 th percentile
Rank, 74th percentileLowHigh
#661 of 2,495 tracts In Los Angeles
Elevated
Within state
100 th percentile
Rank, 100th percentileLowHigh
#1 of 9,109 tracts In California
Very High
Geographic context

Risk heat across Bell and the region

Centroid at 33.9663, -118.1906 · click any tract to drill in

Why Walker scores 9.9

9 axes · 1 = landlord-friendly
Local political climate
Inherited from Bell
7.5
Regional political climate
2024 county presidential margin
7.2
State political climate
California legislature & governorship
6.8
Economic stress
20.7% poverty · this tract
5.2
Supply constraint
$1,407 rent vs county FMR
1.0
Rent control risk
Inherited from Bell
8.5
Eviction process difficulty
State law sets the calendar
6.3
Tenant organizing strength
Inherited from Bell
9.9
Housing court bias
Inherited from Bell
8.7

How Walker compares

Risk score vs. parent city, county, state.
Walker risk score vs. parent city / county / stateThis tract: 9.99.9This tracttract 534404Bell: 9.09.0Bellparent cityCounty: 8.48.4Countyavg tract in countyState: 7.57.5Stateavg tract in state
CDC Social Vulnerability Index

SVI percentile: 93

CDC/ATSDR 2022. Higher = more vulnerable. National percentile across 84k tracts.

Historical context · 1930s redlining

HOLC grade: C: Definitely Declining

This tract sits within an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s. Grade C meant mixed-race / working-class neighborhoods rated as risky. These designations suppressed minority homeownership for generations and remain a documented predictor of present-day eviction filings and rent burden.

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.

Comparable tracts

Census tracts with similar eviction risk

Within Walker. Closest by Eviction Risk Score.

CDC PLACES 2023 · health & economic stress

Eviction-adjacent indicators

Crude prevalence of conditions linked to housing loss. Source: CDC PLACES (cwsq-ngmh), 2023 model-based small-area estimates.

Analysis

What drives eviction risk in Walker

26% are severely burdened past the 50% mark. That cohort absorbs no shock: one repair bill or one cut shift converts straight into arrears. On the softer side, supply constraint reads 1/10. Housing insecurity runs 31.6% against 14.2% nationally.

73% of occupied units are rented, so comparables are plentiful and vacancy risk is low, but a mispriced renewal loses the tenant to a building nearby. Sitting well above the midpoint, housing-court posture reads 8.7/10. Adults with no health insurance runs 26.1% against 11.3% nationally.

45% of renter households cross the 30%-of-income line, lower than the Los Angeles County average of 53.8%. Against the Los Angeles County average of 8.4, this tract reads riskier for landlords by 1.5 points. The poverty rate is 21%. Judgments in high-poverty tracts are collectible far less often than filing counts suggest.

Average gross rent is $1,407, 18% below the Cudahy average. In the 1930s the federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation graded this ground C ("Definitely Declining"). Redlining cut off mortgage credit to whole blocks for decades, and the areas graded D still carry measurably lower ownership and higher rent burden today. On the national scale it lands near the 100th percentile of the 84,120 tracts scored.

CDC social-vulnerability scoring puts the tract at 9.3/10. Statewide the CA average is 7.5, so this tract runs 2.4 points hotter. Of its three components the socioeconomic standing measure is the most pressured.

Annual rent works out to 31% of average household income of $54,063.

These are ACS 5-year estimates; the score moves when the ACS, court-record, or statute inputs behind it move.

Frequently asked

About tract 06037534404

Q1

What is the eviction-risk score for census tract 06037534404?

Census tract 06037534404 in the Walker neighborhood scores 9.9/10 (High 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 06037534404?

Median gross rent is $1,407/month (ACS 5-year 2023, table B25064). 45% of renter households are cost-burdened.
Q3

What is the poverty rate in tract 06037534404?

20.7% of residents in tract 06037534404 live below the federal poverty line (ACS B17001, 2023). Population: 3,244.
Q4

How socially vulnerable is tract 06037534404?

CDC Social Vulnerability Index ranks this tract in the 93th percentile nationally. Sub-themes: socioeconomic 96th, household 64th, minority 97th, housing 83th.
Q5

Is tract 06037534404 considered part of Walker?

Yes. Per Census Bureau 2020 Block Assignment Files, the plurality of blocks in tract 06037534404 fall within Walker (neighborhood centroid within 1.4 miles, OSM data).
Q6

What share of households in tract 06037534404 struggle to pay rent?

About 31.6% of adults in this tract reported housing insecurity (could not pay rent or mortgage in the past 12 months), per the CDC PLACES 2023 model-based small-area estimate. 13.5% also reported utility shutoff threats, a frequent precursor to eviction filings.
Q7

How does tract 06037534404 compare to Bell overall?

Tract 06037534404 scores 9.9/10, higher than the parent city of Bell at 9/10. City-scale signals (state law, local rent controls, court bias) are inherited from Bell; what makes this tract different are its tract-specific economic stress and supply-constraint sub-scores.
Q8

Was tract 06037534404 historically redlined?

Yes. This tract sits inside an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s, with a dominant grade of C. 0% 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.
Sibling tracts

Highest-risk tracts in Bell

Top eight tracts in Bell ranked by composite eviction-risk score.

Related