Page 1

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?

Trends in Educational Attainment of Youth in Toronto: A Comparison of Neighbourhood  

A presentation on research findings concerning educational attainment in various Toronto neighbourhoods, given at the United Way Community o...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you