Trends in Educational Attainment of Youth in Toronto: A Comparison of Neighbourhoods Phillip Meng, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow School of Social Work, York University and Alex Lovell, PhD (c) Queen’s University
Outline • Research Context – Toronto’s Priority Neighbourhoods • Research Methods – Customized Census Data
• Findings • Implications of Findings • Comments and Questions
Research Context: 13 Priority Neighbourhoods in Toronto:
Research Framework Temporal analysis: Explore the differences in different years
Unpaid housework
Language
Household structure causes and/or results Visible minority
Immigration status
Gender Income
Education
Mobility Mode of transportation to work
causes and/or results Occupation Ethnic origins Spatial analysis: Explore the differences in different neighbourhoods
Employment
Methods • Customized Statistics Canada Data – Three Census Years: 1996, 2001 & 2006 – Three youth groups: 15-19, 20-24, 25-29 – Data is at the Census Tract (CT) level for Toronto.
– Variables include: • Age, Sex, Marriage status, Language, Mobility, Immigration status, Aboriginal info, Employment, Occupation, Place of work, Mode of transportation to work, Unpaid housework, Education, Visible minority, Household structure, Ethnic origins, Income
Quantitative Methods: Research Questions • For each youth group (15-19, 20-24, 25-29), we are exploring income and education differences in different neighbourhoods in Toronto (spatial patterns) particularly the situation within the PN13 – We are exploring how different socio-demographic variables are associated with these differences
Quantitative Methods: Other Possible Questions • Other possible questions: Who are NEETers? – We will develop a profile of youth who are NEET (not engaged in education, employment and training) especially youth from PN13s so we can develop policy and practice options that support them to continue with their learning and training. – Spending time NEET is a major predictor of later unemployment, low income, depression and poor mental health (HRSDC). – What factors are associated with NEETers disengagement from education or work?
Results: Education The Percent of Population with University Degree (25-29) 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%
Education (University Degree) Gap in 1996: 13.9% Gap in 2006: 24.3%
PNs City Wide Others
40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
1996
2001
2006
The Percent of Population without High School Diploma (20-24)
Education (No High School Diploma) Gap in 1996: 4.3% Gap in 2006: 5.1%
25.0% 20.0% 15.0% PNs City Wide Others
10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1996
2001
2006
Jane-Finch Position (University Degree) 1996
2001
Priority Neighbourhoods
Uni(%)
1
Westmin Branson
34.18%
2
Lawrence Height
3
2006 Priority Neighbourhoods
Uni(%)
1
Weston Mt Denis
49.39%
40.64%
2
Flemingdon Victorias
49.03%
Lawrence Height
35.77%
3
Lawrence Height
43.52%
4
Flemingdon Victorias
34.73%
4
Jamestown
42.52%
22.14%
5
Crescent Town
30.48%
5
Malvern
42.22%
Dorset Parks
21.47%
6
Dorset Parks
26.99%
6
Dorset Parks
39.51%
7
Eglinton Kennedy
17.88%
7
Weston Mt Denis
23.16%
7
Eglinton Kennedy
36.65%
8
Jamestown
17.63%
8
Eglinton Kennedy
20.99%
8
Jane Finch
31.27%
9
Weston Mt Denis
15.33%
9
Kingston Galloways
20.67%
9
Steeles Amoreaux
29.35%
10
Scarborough Village
15.08%
10
Malvern
19.14%
10
Kingston Galloways
27.51%
11
Kingston Galloways
14.77%
11
Scarborough Village
18.88%
11
Westmin Branson
25.37%
12
Malvern
14.52%
12
Jamestown
18.66%
12
Scarborough Village
23.76%
13
Jane Finch
13.63%
13
Jane Finch
15.73%
13
Crescent Town
22.73%
Priority Neighbourhoods
Uni(%)
1
Westmin Branson
42.81%
29.14%
2
Steeles Amoreaux
Steeles Amoreaux
28.94%
3
4
Flemingdon Victorias
26.09%
5
Crescent Town
6
Jane-Finch’s Position (No High School Diploma) 1996
2001
Priority Neighbourhoods
No Hi(%)
1
Steeles Amoreaux
12.13%
2
Westmin Branson
3
2006 Priority Neighbourhoods
No Hi(%)
Priority Neighbourhoods
No Hi(%)
1
Malvern
9.46%
1
Lawrence Height
8.25%
12.54%
2
Westmin Branson
10.42%
2
Weston Mt Denis
8.48%
Flemingdon Victorias
16.67%
3
Steeles Amoreaux
12.08%
3
Flemingdon Victorias
10.49%
4
Lawrence Height
16.80%
4
Lawrence Height
13.37%
4
Eglinton Kennedy
10.59%
5
Dorset Parks
18.73%
5
Dorset Parks
14.39%
5
Malvern
12.16%
6
Jamestown
20.00%
6
Flemingdon Victorias
14.52%
6
Jane Finch
13.17%
7
Eglinton Kennedy
21.04%
7
Kingston Galloways
16.71%
7
Steeles Amoreaux
13.75%
8
Malvern
21.56%
8
Crescent Town
17.55%
8
Crescent Town
13.98%
9
Scarborough Village
21.99%
9
Eglinton Kennedy
19.17%
9
Scarborough Village
15.85%
10
Kingston Galloways
22.65%
10
Weston Mt Denis
22.00%
10
Dorset Parks
16.27%
11
Weston Mt Denis
24.56%
11
Jamestown
22.53%
11
Kingston Galloways
16.82%
12
Jane Finch
25.77%
12
Scarborough Village
23.07%
12
Jamestown
18.18%
13
Crescent Town
26.29%
13
Jane Finch
23.82%
13
Westmin Branson
19.84%
Results: The Percent of Visible Minority in the Population The Percent of Visible Minority in the Popuation (15-19)
The Percent of Visible Minority in the Population (25-29)
80.0%
75.0% 70.0%
75.0% 70.0% 65.0%
PNs City Others
60.0% 55.0% 50.0% 45.0%
65.0% 60.0% 55.0%
PNs City Others
50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0%
40.0%
1996
2001
2006
1996
Visible Minority (15-19): Gap in 1996: 17.4% Gap in 2006: 23.8%
The Percent of Visible Minority in the Population (20-24) 75.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 55.0%
PNs City Others
50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0%
1996
2001
2006
Visible Minority (20-24): Gap in 1996: 17.0% Gap in 2006: 21.7% Visible Minority (25-29): Gap in 1996: 22.1% Gap in 2006: 26.1%
2001
2006
Jane-Finch’s Position (15-19) 1996
2001
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Malvern
73.90%
2
Crescent Town
3
2006 Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Jamestown
90.25%
81.47%
2
Malvern
87.54%
Steeles Amoreaux
79.33%
3
Steeles Amoreaux
86.35%
4
Jane Finch
75.15%
4
Jane Finch
81.74%
67.29%
5
Flemingdon Victorias
74.91%
5
Dorset Parks
81.65%
Jane Finch
64.04%
6
Eglinton Kennedy
69.79%
6
Flemingdon Victorias
79.06%
7
Scarborough Village
63.32%
7
Scarborough Village
67.60%
7
Eglinton Kennedy
75.87%
8
Dorset Parks
58.49%
8
Dorset Parks
64.80%
8
Kingston Galloways
69.54%
9
Eglinton Kennedy
50.84%
9
Kingston Galloways
61.54%
9
Scarborough Village
69.27%
10
Weston Mt Denis
47.81%
10
Crescent Town
56.22%
10
Crescent Town
60.48%
11
Lawrence Height
44.39%
11
Weston Mt Denis
55.01%
11
Weston Mt Denis
55.18%
12
Kingston Galloways
43.17%
12
Lawrence Height
40.57%
12
Lawrence Height
48.06%
13
Westmin Branson
30.03%
13
Westmin Branson
22.22%
13
Westmin Branson
36.22%
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Jamestown
82.04%
72.66%
2
Malvern
Flemingdon Victorias
70.18%
3
4
Steeles Amoreaux
67.97%
5
Jamestown
6
Jane-Finch’s Position (20-24) 1996
2001
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Malvern
69.72%
2
Jamestown
3
2006
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Malvern
72.86%
66.77%
2
Flemingdon Victorias
Steeles Amoreaux
64.61%
3
4
Crescent Town
61.14%
5
Flemingdon Victorias
6
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Jamestown
87.22%
67.16%
2
Malvern
87.21%
Steeles Amoreaux
66.99%
3
Steeles Amoreaux
83.59%
4
Scarborough Village
66.23%
4
Dorset Parks
78.04%
60.72%
5
Jamestown
66.22%
5
Jane Finch
77.70%
Jane Finch
56.71%
6
Jane Finch
59.98%
6
Flemingdon Victorias
73.88%
7
Dorset Parks
54.68%
7
Dorset Parks
58.89%
7
Kingston Galloways
70.41%
8
Scarborough Village
53.12%
8
Eglinton Kennedy
57.93%
8
Eglinton Kennedy
70.00%
9
Kingston Galloways
52.34%
9
Kingston Galloways
57.03%
9
Scarborough Village
67.27%
10
Eglinton Kennedy
45.24%
10
Weston Mt Denis
49.76%
10
Crescent Town
60.50%
11
Weston Mt Denis
44.90%
11
Crescent Town
47.41%
11
Weston Mt Denis
52.90%
12
Lawrence Height
33.68%
12
Lawrence Height
35.31%
12
Lawrence Height
45.33%
13
Westmin Branson
28.92%
13
Westmin Branson
24.92%
13
Westmin Branson
35.34%
Jane-Finch’s Position (25-29) 1996
2001
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Malvern
75.60%
2
Steeles Amoreaux
3
2006 Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Jamestown
89.19%
78.40%
2
Malvern
87.05%
Steeles Amoreaux
73.11%
3
Steeles Amoreaux
81.92%
4
Scarborough Village
68.18%
4
Dorset Parks
76.39%
58.45%
5
Jane Finch
66.10%
5
Jane Finch
74.26%
Scarborough Village
57.31%
6
Dorset Parks
65.65%
6
Scarborough Village
72.11%
7
Crescent Town
57.20%
7
Flemingdon Victorias
65.18%
7
Crescent Town
70.85%
8
Dorset Parks
56.31%
8
Crescent Town
61.14%
8
Flemingdon Victorias
67.42%
9
Eglinton Kennedy
52.17%
9
Eglinton Kennedy
59.90%
9
Eglinton Kennedy
66.06%
10
Kingston Galloways
51.16%
10
Kingston Galloways
58.77%
10
Kingston Galloways
65.97%
11
Weston Mt Denis
44.92%
11
Weston Mt Denis
49.74%
11
Weston Mt Denis
58.56%
12
Lawrence Height
37.71%
12
Lawrence Height
35.75%
12
Lawrence Height
41.34%
13
Westmin Branson
31.31%
13
Westmin Branson
27.97%
13
Westmin Branson
39.35%
Priority Neighbourhoods
VisMin(%)
1
Malvern
83.23%
69.54%
2
Jamestown
Jamestown
67.88%
3
4
Flemingdon Victorias
58.63%
5
Jane Finch
6
Results: Average Income Average Income (15-19)
Average Income 31000
6000 5800 5600 5400 5200 5000 4800 4600 4400 4200 4000
29000 27000 25000 PNs City Others
PNs City Others
23000 21000 19000 17000 15000
1996
2001
1996
2006
2001
Average Income (15-19): Gap in 1996: 321 Gap in 2006: 595
Average Income (20-24) 15000 14000 13000 12000
PNs City Others
11000 10000
Average Income (20-24): Gap in 1996: 818 Gap in 2006: 1888
9000 8000
1996
2001
2006
Average Income (25-29): Gap in 1996: 3396 Gap in 2006: 6577
2006
Results: Unemployment Rate Unemployment Rate (15-19)
Unemployment Rate (25-29)
30.0% 28.0% 26.0% 24.0% 22.0% 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
PNs City Others
1996
2001
15.0% 14.0% 13.0% 12.0% 11.0% 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0%
PNs City Others
1996
2006
2001
Unemployment rate (15-19): Gap in 1996: 7.2% Gap in 2006: 3.3%
Unemployment Rate (20-24) 22.0% 20.0% 18.0% PNs City Others
16.0% 14.0% 12.0%
Unemployment rate (20-24): Gap in 1996: 2.7% Gap in 2006: 0.3%
10.0%
1996
2001
2006
Unemployment rate (25-29): Gap in 1996: 4.0% Gap in 2006: 2.6%
2006
Occupation A: Management B: Bussiness, Finance, Administration C: Natral and Applied Science
More and more youth in other neighbourhoods have moved into A, C, and E occupation sectors.
D: Health E: Social Science, Education, Government Service, and Religion F: Art, Culture, Sport, and Recreation G: Sales and Service H: Trade, Transport, and Equipment Operator I: Jobs in Primary Industry J: Jobs in Processing, Manufacture, and Utility
More and more youth in priority neighbourhoods have moved into G, H, and J occupation sectors.
Summary of indings • The education related socioeconomic outcomes of youth are significantly lower within 13 priority neigbhourhoods. • The socioeconomic outcomes are improving in the 13 priority neigbhourhoods and other neigbhourhoods during 1996 and 2006 but to a different extent • Except for youth unemployment rate, the gap between other socio-economic variables got wider between the 13 priority neighbourhoods and other neigbhourhoods in the last 10 years. – The education related socioeconomic outcomes of youth in JaneFinch have improved but are still below the average for priority neighbourhoods.
Implication of Findings • Youth income is significantly associated with – Youth education level – Youth ethnic and immigrant background
• Youth income has no significant relationship with – Youth unemployment rate
• School-based work experience programs are necessary in order to help develop longer-term career directions and increase youth employability. – These programs should operate in full awareness of the reality and life of youth and their communities.
Context from Qualitative Findings: Education and Networks Matter…. • Youth that have left high school felt that education matters: Top on the list of what youth consider an avenue to success was education. – Youth described the multi-dimensional importance of education that goes beyond the economic benefits. – Majority of youth cited education as necessary for success • Most youth discussed the importance of networks, volunteering, and relationship building to obtain a job. – Creating networks are important for residents within the Jane and Finch community as a way to overcome the stigma attached to the community placed on them by outsiders.
QUESTIONS?