Understanding the Early Years - Results of the Community Mapping Study in North York - May 2001

3. The Social Environment in North York

Previous

Contents

Next

A child's social interaction with other people can have an important influence on his or her development. Children's capacity for successful, positive social interaction begins at a young age, and is influenced by early close relationships, their experiences with other children and the guidance and instruction that comes from parents and other family members (see Doherty, 1997). These relationships can be complemented by interactions with other people beyond the family, such as care-givers and residents of their neighbourhood and the larger community. Children's expectations and behaviours can be affected by role models in the community.

This section provides socio-economic and demographic information about the neighbourhoods where children in North York lived using data from the 1996 Census. A number of characteristics of the residents, such as family status, education, employment and income, and multiculturalism were examined. This analysis helps researchers answer a number of critical questions related to the social environment of children living in North York's various neighbourhoods.

Population mobility

How many of North York's neighbourhoods were stable or transient and how many children and families resided in such neighbourhoods?

Why ask this question?

Neighbourhoods with higher levels of stability are those in which community members are more likely to act on behalf of the common good of children. One way to measure neighbourhood stability is by measuring the proportion of individuals who made a residential move in the last year. High rates of residential mobility and transiency in neighbourhoods often correspond to social disruption and weakened social ties, which in turn can create a climate more conducive to crime and other types of anti-social behaviour. Thus, social ties are an important prerequisite to neighbourhood cohesion and collective efficacy - defined as social cohesion among neighbours and their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). In other words, in neighbourhoods where residents are isolated from each other, social ties tend to be weak and a sense of common interest even weaker.

Some theorists suggest that positive peer and adult role models in the community can influence child development and well-being, particularly in terms of behaviour and learning, while negative environments may deprive children of positive social supports, while exposing them to unhealthy or otherwise anti-social behaviours.³

Map 4 - Which areas had the highest mobility?

• The average number of North York residents who had changed homes in the previous year was 15% of the population -lower than the national average of 16%.
• A few isolated neighbourhoods scattered throughout North York had high levels of mobility. Such transient neighbourhoods were also associated with higher levels of recent immigrants.
• There were 60 Enumeration Areas (EAs) (8%) in North York characterized by high mobility (29% or more people in the area had moved within the past year) and these EAs had an average poverty rate of approximately 40%. Half of their population (46%) was comprised of families with children. In total there were 4,035 children aged six or younger living in these enumeration areas, which could possibly be affected by the multiple factors of instability, poverty and disadvantage. Specific community resources may need to be targeted to the children in these neighbourhoods.

Education and employment

How educated were people in the community and how many residents were employed?

Why ask this question?

Education levels of residents are considered a crucial part of the socio-economic environment of communities where children grow and develop. Adults in the community with high levels of education are more likely to be employed, less likely to live in poverty, and more likely to serve as positive role models and mentors to their own children and children in the community. Conversely, those with lower education levels may face diminished employment prospects, and are more likely to live in poverty. The education of parents has been shown to be related to the development of their children.

Problems in neighbourhoods with high unemployment rates may be compounded by higher poverty and lack of available resources.

Adults in a community with high levels of education are more likely to be employed, less likely to live in poverty, and more likely to serve as positive role models and mentors to their own children and children in the community.

Such neighbourhood characteristics can negatively impact a child's environment and overall well-being. Research has shown that neighbourhoods with high levels of unemployment can impact negatively on children's behavioural outcomes (Kohen, Hertzman & Brooks-Gunn, 1998).

Several studies have also found relationships among the general socio-economic climate of neighbourhoods (of which education and employment are important components) and the development of the children who live in them. Such studies have shown that neighbourhoods with residents of higher average socio-economic status were associated with more positive developmental outcomes (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993; Chase-Lansdale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn & Klebanov, 1997; Halpern-Felsher et al., 1997).

Map 5 - Which areas had the highest proportion of people with a post-secondary education?

• Approximately 41% of North York residents had completed some type of post-secondary education (college diploma or university degree). These individuals lived mainly in the central and eastern portion of the community.
• One-half of all children aged six and younger (26,710) lived in neighbourhoods with high levels of residents with post-secondary completion.
• Very few neighbourhoods had fewer than 15% of residents with post-secondary education. The poverty and unemployment rates in these neighbourhoods were similar to the national average.

Map 6 - Which areas had the highest proportion of people without a high school diploma?

• In North York, 33% of people aged 15 and over had not yet obtained a high school diploma. This figure was slightly lower than the national average of 37%.
• However, 39% of North York residents lived in neighbourhoods where the percentage of individuals without a high school diploma was greater than the national average. Nearly half (45%) of all children aged six and younger in North York lived in these neighbourhoods, which were largely concentrated in the western half of the community.
• Areas with a high proportion (above or equal to 54%) of individuals who did not have a high school diploma were home to 6,160 children (about 12% of the North York population aged six and younger). These 83 areas also had high average unemployment and poverty rates (18% and 42% respectively).

Map 7 - What were the employment rates of the neighbourhoods?

• The unemployment rate in North York was 10.4%, measured at the time of the 1996 Census. This rate was lower than the unemployment rate for Canada overall, which was 11.0%.
• There were a few isolated areas in the community with high unemployment (greater than 22%), located mainly in the northwest and southeast regions of North York. These areas were in some cases also marked by other forms of social disadvantage, such as a proportion of persons without a high school diploma above the national average and a high poverty rate.

Household incomes

What were the income levels of North York residents?

Why ask this question?

Adequate household income is essential to purchase goods and services, to access resources (through transportation, for example) and to benefit from cultural resources such as books and theatres. Neighbourhoods where a high number of residents live in poverty can pose challenges to families and children, service providers and policy makers. Such areas may lack resources, and residents could be deprived of interaction with mainstream social networks and role models through processes of isolation and segregation. These neighbourhoods may also experience overcrowding, lower levels of safety, a less-desirable physical environment, and a scarcity of resources.

Map 8 - What was the average household income in North York neighbourhoods?

• In relation to Canada as a whole, North York is relatively affluent as measured by average household income. The average 1996 household income in North York was $54,173, which was approximately $8,000 higher than the national average household income of $45,739. More than half of North York's neighbourhoods had average incomes above the national average household income.
• The neighbourhoods with the highest average household incomes (greater than $67,000) had the highest proportion of people aged 15 and over with a post-secondary education.

Map 9 - Which areas had the highest proportion of low income households?

• In North York, the individual poverty rate (measured as the proportion of individuals living below Statistics Canada's Low income Cut-Off) was 28%, compared to the national rate of 19%.
• Some 224 neighbourhoods had 36% or more of their residents living in poverty. These neighbourhoods were distributed throughout the community, although larger clusters of low income households were located in the eastern and western sides of the community. Some low income areas were intermingled with more affluent neighbourhoods.
• Over one-quarter of North York's population — and 20,565 children aged six and younger resided in these low income neighbourhoods. These areas also tended to have higher unemployment rates and, in some cases, residents with lower levels of education.

Over one-quarter of North York's population - and over one-third of children aged six years and younger resided in high-poverty neighbourhoods.

Family structure

What was the predominant family structure of households in the neighbourhoods?

Why ask this question?

While most children from lone-parent households do well, research has shown that a higher proportion of children with cognitive and behavioural problems come from such families (Lipman, Boyle, Dooley, and Offord, 1998; Ross, Roberts, and Scott, 1998). In addition, a higher incidence of two-parent families living in a neighbourhood has been linked to healthier child and adolescent development (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, and Sealand, 1993).

Map 10 - Which areas had the highest proportion of families with children headed by a lone-parent?

• In North York the proportion of families with children that were headed by a lone-parent was 27%, which was higher than the national average of 23%.
• 56% of all North York neighbourhoods had a proportion of lone-parent families greater than or equal to 23%. Just under two-thirds of all children aged six and younger lived in these neighbourhoods, which also included an above average proportion of people living in poverty.
• A relatively small number of neighbourhoods (128) had a disproportionately high proportion of lone-parent families (greater than or equal to 42%). These neighbourhoods also showed other characteristics of disadvantage including: high unemployment rates and poverty.

Ethnic and linguistic diversity

How diverse was the community?

Why ask this question?

One of the characteristics specific to North York is its high degree of cultural diversity. In Canada, the number of immigrants as a percentage of the total population was close to 17%. North York had an immigrant population of 51% — or three times the national average. Moreover, approximately one-quarter of North York's population had immigrated to Canada only recently, in the period from 1991 to 1996. Not surprisingly, 48% of residents in North York had a mother tongue that is not one of Canada's official languages. This degree of linguistic and cultural diversity, paired with the large size of the city and all that it has to offer, makes communities like North York attractive for immigrant settlement. However, such diversity can also present many challenges. For example, the ability to speak English or French — Canada's two official languages — is important to successfully navigate the many transitions involved in settling into a new country. Knowledge of a country's official languages allows for easier access to goods and services, and facilitates getting and keeping a job. The work of Kobayashi, Moore, & Rosenberg (1998), for instance, found that immigrant families who spoke neither of Canada's official languages were less likely to use formal community supports such as community and social service professionals, religious or spiritual leaders.

Map 11 - Which areas had the highest proportion of recent immigrants?

• Neighbourhoods with a large proportion of their population, which had immigrated to Canada in the period between 1991 to 1996 (equal to or above the national average of 3.2%), were spread throughout the city.
• High proportions of recent immigrants were found in both high and low income neighbourhoods.
• However, there were clusters of neighbourhoods with many recent immigrants concentrated on the northeast section of the community and in other areas.

Map 12 - Which areas had the highest proportion of residents who did not speak English or French?

• On average, approximately 6% of the population in North York did not speak either of the official languages, compared to 1.4% of the population in Canada.
• Many neighbourhoods in the community had 5.2% or more of the population who did not speak English or French. These neighbourhoods were home to about 27,940 of North York's children six and younger.
• The average individual poverty rate for these neighbourhoods was 35%, significantly higher than the average poverty rate in North York (approximately 28%).

Putting it all together: Creating a Social Index

A Social Index was developed that would provide both a general picture of neighbourhoods within the broader community and the number of potential challenges they faced. Nine variables were selected for their usefulness in describing the socio-economic context of communities, encompassing measures in the areas of education, employment, income level and multiculturalism. Each variable was then compared with the national average, which provided a threshold for evaluating the neighbourhoods. Having the national average as a standard of comparison will be important for looking at variations among different areas of the country as the UEY initiative expands. It will enable comparisons within a community, among communities, and at the same time, to compare a particular community to the country as a whole. Four categories were then established: Low risk (one or two challenges); Somewhat low risk (three or four challenges); Somewhat high risk (five or six challenges); and High risk (seven or more challenges). (Refer to Appendix C for a more detailed description of how the Social Index was calculated).

In order to provide a composite measure of socio-economic risk in communities, a Social Index was developed to provide both a general picture of neighbourhoods within the broader community and the number of potential challenges they faced. Among other uses, the Social Index can serve as a tool to help communities better allocate resources to meet the needs of children and families by permitting analysis of concentrations of need and of the multiple demands placed on community services.

The following is a list of the nine variables that together make up the Social Index

1. Unemployment rate.
2. Individual poverty rate.
3. Proportion of individuals aged 15 and over without a high school diploma.
4. Proportion of families with children headed by a lone-parent.
5. Proportion of the population speaking neither official language.
6. Proportion of the population that immigrated to Canada since 1991.
7. Mobility in one year.
8. Home ownership.
9. Proportion of the total income in the EA coming from government transfer payments (i.e., Canadian Pension Plan, Canadian Child Tax Benefit, provincial social assistance payments).

Map 13 - What did the Social Index indicate about the socio-economic risks of neighbourhoods?

• 7,360 North York children aged six and younger lived in neighbourhoods with two or fewer risks.
• 35,955 children aged six and younger (67%) in North York lived in EAs considered to be at high risk (five or more challenges) as compared to 17,465 children (33 %) who were living in lower risk (4 or fewer challenges) neighbourhoods. The higher-risk EAs were located in the western part of the community, in the northeast corner and in the southeast corner.
• Just under the majority of EAs fell somewhere in between the two extremes, with neither very many nor very few risk characteristics. These two middle categories — "Somewhat low" and "Somewhat high" — comprised roughly 48% of the EAs and 22,710 children six and younger.

Table 1 — Number of children in EAs with differing numbers of risk factors

	Risk Potential of Neighbourhoods
	Low risk (0 to 2 challenges)	Somewhat low risk (3 to 4 challenges)	Somewhat high risk (5 to 6 challenges)	High risk (7 or more challenges)
Number of EAs	125	171	183	256
Percent of EAs	17.0%	23.3%	24.9%	34.8%
Number of children aged 0-6	7,360	10,105	12,605	23,350
Percent of children aged 0-6	13.8%	18.9%	23.6%	43.7%
Individual poverty rate	8.9%	15.8%	27.8%	46.7%

How can this information be used on behalf of children?

• North York had a high proportion of recent immigrants and therefore can play to its strength as a culturally diverse area. The immigrant community is well established and can support newer immigrants to the area.
• While North York as a whole compared favourably with the national average on several indicators, a closer look at individual neighbourhoods showed polarities. Certain EAs in the western edge of the city, for example, were characterized by high proportions of residents with low educational levels and low incomes and high unemployment compared to the national average, thus implying that the needs of neighbourhoods may also vary. Some areas may require not only more services but specific services to overcome disadvantages.
• Single-entry systems can be used to identify families with need. Clustering programs in "single-window". centres located in these areas may improve access and use.
• There were higher densities of children in neighbourhoods with five or more risks. Multiple risk factors and high concentrations of children may require a change in current patterns of service allocation to reduce future problems.
• Community action could be directed to preventing spatial concentrations of problems (areas where problems are clustered) as well as exposure to multiple risk factors among families.

• ³ Furstenberg and Hughes, 1995; Jencks and Mayer, 1990.

Previous

Contents

Next