CAMBRIDGE today is in the position of an advanced cancer victim. The tumor of juvenile delinquency has grown to dangerous size, and, unless it is reduced, may well spread disease to the healthier parts of the city. But the cure will be long and hard, perhaps next to impossible.

Yet, like many such victims, Cambridge seems only dimly aware of its disease. A handful of social workers, a few academic men, one or two policemen may understand the problem. But the great majority of citizens is either unaware of its existence, or blithely ignores it.

A short, virtually unnoticed, Associated Press bulletin last year indicated the gravity of the situation when it announced that the Cambridge-Somerville district has the largest rate of juvenile delinquency in the country.

This statistic may have been misleading. There are no zip gun wars here such as those in New York, and the crimes committed here are probably slightly less serious in nature. But the problem is simply this: a greater number of teenagers in this area seem to commit unlawful and anti-social acts than in any comparable area in the country.

Environmental Causes

The causes of Cambridge delinquency are the familiar ones. To a certain extent they are environmental. One can work out a pretty close correlation between the degree of dilapidation of an area and the degree of its delinquency. The fairly substantial middle class sections adjoining and to the west of Harvard Yard are relatively free of juvenile problems. But it is in the poorer sections of the city, to the east of Harvard, that the real difficulty lies.

Chief of the problem areas is Neighborhood Four. Lying behind M.I.T., it includes the vice area around Kendall Square and two crime-producing federal housing projects. Here one finds a close correspondence between environment and juvenile crime. For if the area is a leader in delinquency, it is also a leader in housing problems. It contains only 11% of the city's dwelling units, yet it claims 23% of the city's dilapidated homes. Fifty percent of its houses have no central heating system.

The area is also badly overcrowded, especially in the younger age brackets. Compared with the city average of 24.2 children per acre, Neighborhood Four has about one acre of land for each 53.5 children. Play space is at a minimum.

Close behind this neighborhood in delinquency problems follow the Central Square area, the Western Avenue section behind Dunster House, and Census Tract Seven, a long thin district running along the Cambridge-Somerville line. All of these exhibit the same characteristics of poor housing and overcrowding.

But poor living conditions and urban renewal problems are not the sole determinants of Cambridge delinquency. A glance at the neighborhood of East Cambridge proves that. It, too, has low income families. It has fairly poor housing, and has a greater percentage of dwelling units without central heating than any of the problem areas mentioned above. It is overcrowded, and is an island completely surrounded by industry. Yet for some reason it has a relatively low rate of delinquency.

The solution to the dilemma would seem to be this: it is not the slums per se which cause Cambridge delinquency; rather it is a combination of factors, including the deterioration of the family and the absence of social organization in the neighborhood.

The low rate of delinquency for East Cambridge can thus be attributed to the strong family, religious, and civic ties which exist there. The area contains three strong, self-sufficient nationality groups, the Italians, the Portuguese, and the Poles, with a smattering of Lithuanians. Each group has its own active parish and societies, and takes great pride in the neighborhood. Despite the poor housing conditions, most families are eager to stay in the area.

In sharp contrast stands the notorious Neighborhood Four. Here the social problems are acute. Many families have lost the father, sometimes accidentally, sometimes through incarceration, sometimes because he just plain ran away. The neighborhood claims 25% of the City's mother's aid cases and 22% of the City's relief cases.

Nor is there any strong sense of pride in the area. Most of those who work do so outside the district, and hence feel less tied to the neighborhood than they might. Social organization has been virtually non-existent in the neighborhood. As one social worker expressed it. "You would be amazed at the lack of natural resources here. No women's clubs, no Boy Scouts, no nothing."

The Housing Projects