Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Social Planning

SUBJECT:

Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Quality of Life Reporting System - A Vancouver Perspective

 

INFORMATION

COUNCIL POLICY

On December 9, 1997, City Council agreed to continuing participation by Vancouver in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Quality of Life Reporting System (FCM QOL) project, with the annual cost of $5,000 being funded from the Social Planning budget.

PURPOSE

This report is presented as an update of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Quality of Life project and an analysis of the first two reports from the project, particularly as they relate to Vancouver.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) began looking at the effects of changes in federal transfer payments on municipalities across the country. They quickly discovered that their member municipalities lacked the tools and data to consider and debate this and other issues on a nation-wide basis.

Consequently, the largest urban members of FCM, with the support of the Big City Mayors Caucus and FCM staff, undertook the creation of a reporting system to monitor quality of life in Canadian municipalities. Representatives from 16 municipalities, including Social Planning staff from Vancouver, then developed a list of strategic and sustainable indicators of quality of life, with a particular emphasis on social indicators on topics that aren't often looked at in depth. Initial data collection and analysis of these indicators was completed and presented in the first QOL Report, published in May 1999. A second QOL Report was released in March 2001 (copies of both are available in Social Planning or from the FCM website www.fcm.ca). It included further refinement and updating of the original eight indicators, as well as measures of changes that had occurred over the intervening two year period.

In the period between the two reports, a 17th municipality joined the project. The FCM is continuously trying to expand the participation in the QOL project. It is important to note that all of the indicators and data presented in the Reports apply only to the current participating municipalities and regions.

DISCUSSION

The following indicators have been developed:
Community Affordability Measure Quality of Employment Measure
Quality of Housing Measure Health of Community Measure
Community Participation Measure Population Resources Measure
Community Stress Measure Community Safety Measure

These indicators are not meant to be a duplication of information reported on by others - rather, they are a re-compiling of information from a range of sources that produces a series of numbers which provides a simple way of understanding where each municipality stands in relation to others, on each specific topic. A key feature of these indicators is their ability to show and quantify change over time.

Two more indicators (Social Infrastructure and Quality of the Environment) are under active development at this time and others will be added as the project gets more sophisticated at identifying data needs and sources. Just as importantly, the current data base is being regularly updated and changes over time are being plotted.

Overall Findings of the 1999 Report

· income, education, and employment standards in several communities are higher than the national or provincial averages

·Canadian metropolitan areas are undergoing a dramatic transformation into vibrant multicultural societies. Municipal governments and urban communities are continually adjusting their service systems to help ease the newcomers transition to their new society
· urban communities studied in this report have larger ranges of income inequality and higher incidence of poverty than the national and provincial averages
· a growth and concentration of social problems in major urban centres
· overall crime rates have been decreasing, but this is volatile and shifting
· housing is a serious concern, particularly with regards to affordability
· youth unemployment, and associated low income remains a problem
· young families are becoming more financially vulnerable

Updated Findings of 2001 Report

· employment and unemployment rates improved for all age groups
· wages improved marginally for all age groups
· the proportion of families relying on Employment Insurance and Social Assistance declined
· the drop in incomes experienced by most families between 1992 an 1996 was curtailed, although not reversed
· the decline in poverty rates does not mitigate the increases in poverty of the first half of the 1990's. The income gap has not narrowed.
· rapid population growth in some of the QOL communities resulted in pressures on community planning for both infrastructure and services.

The Vancouver Perspective

Social Planning staff have reviewed the reports in detail to see how and if these general findings pertain to the situation in Vancouver. The detailed findings of this review are included in Appendix A. For many of the indicators, Vancouver is very much like the rest of the cities in Canada, but there are some notable exceptions.

In summary, the significant differences in Vancouver are as follows:

· a high proportion of well-educated young adults, earning relatively high wages
· almost half the population belong to visible minorities; almost all the population growth in the past few years is attributable to international immigration, with most of the immigrants belonging to visible minorities
· there aren't enough children living in Vancouver to fill existing jobs vacated by retiring workers
· the cost of living in Vancouver is the highest in the country; the cost of housing in Vancouver is 2-4 times higher than in the rest of the QOL cities
· in contradiction to the national trend, real incomes for 75% of Vancouver residents have continued to drop; almost a quarter of all families living in Vancouver have incomes below the "low income cut-off"
· in contradiction to the national trends, the unemployment rate for older workers, rose substantially between 1996 and 1998; almost one half of unemployed men over the age of 40 were out of work for more than 6 months
· compared to other urban centres, the youth crime rate in Vancouver is very low. Violence and property crime have declined but the rates are still higher than in other urban centres.

CONCLUSION

The FCM QOL Report shows that Vancouver is pretty typical for a Canadian City, with the exceptions noted above. One important consequence of this finding is that it makes a great deal of sense for Vancouver to work together with all the other cities that are facing the same social issues and concerns to get the federal and provincial supports needed to address these problems.

Even in these early stages, the FCM QOL has shown itself to be a useful tool that is assisting staff in their work. Staff will continue to report back to Council as this tool is further refined and as new data is produced.

- - - - -

The FCM Quality of Life Reporting System
VANCOUVER'S DIFFERENCES

Background

In 1996, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) began looking at the effects of changes in federal transfer payments on municipalities across the country. They quickly discovered that their member municipalities lacked the tools and data to consider and debate this and other issues on a nation-wide basis. They also concluded that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to directly measure the effects of changes in federal or provincial policy, but it was possible to measure the overall effects of changes on the quality of life of residents, and some of these changes could be traced back to senior governments' policy changes. Another advantage to this method of measuring change is that it could result in the identification of areas where the municipalities themselves could bring about improvements.

Consequently, the largest urban members of FCM, with the support of the Big City Mayors Caucus and FCM staff, undertook the creation of a reporting system to monitor quality of life in Canadian municipalities. The participants (listed below) developed a list of strategic and sustainable indicators of quality of life, with a particular emphasis on social indicators on topics that aren't often looked at in depth. Initial data collection and analysis of eight of these indicators was completed and presented in the first QOL Report, published in May 1999. A second QOL Report was released in March 2001 (copies of both are available in Social Planning). It included further refinement and updating of the original eight indicators, as well as measures of changes that had occurred over the intervening two year period.

Participants

The Quality of Life (QOL) Reporting System was developed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the following 17 large municipalities and regional districts:
City of Vancouver City of Burnaby City of Calgary
City of Edmonton City of Regina Regina Health District
City of Saskatoon City of Winnipeg City of Windsor
City of London City of Toronto (new) Hamilton-Wentworth Region
Region of Peel Region of York Ottawa-Carleton Region
Waterloo Region Halifax Region

Subsequent to the 1999 Report, the Regional Municipality of Halton joined in this project, and the Regional Municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carlton, and Sudbury underwent municipal amalgamation, becoming the City of Hamilton, the City of Ottawa and the City of Greater Sudbury. The data tables have all been amended to reflect these changes.

Each of these municipalities and regions voluntarily joined the project and efforts continue to be made to interest others in joining.

It is important to note that all of the indicators and data presented in the Report apply only to the participating municipalities and regions.

Goals

· Identify and raise awareness of issues affecting quality of life in Canadian communities
· Better target policies and resources aimed at improving quality of life
· Establish municipal governments as a strong and legitimate partner in public policy debate

It also provides municipal governments with a valuable national forum for sharing experience and expertise

The Indicators

The following indicators have been developed:
Community Affordability Measure Quality of Employment Measure
Quality of Housing Measure Health of Community Measure
Community Participation Measure Population Resources Measure
Community Stress Measure Community Safety Measure

These indicators are not meant to be a duplication of information reported on by others - rather, they are a re-compiling of information from a range of sources that produces a series of numbers which provides a simple way of understanding where each municipality stands in relation to others, on each specific topic. A key feature of these indicators is their ability to show and quantify change over time.

Two more indicators (Social Infrastructure and Quality of Environment) are under active development at this time and others will be added as the project gets more sophisticated at identifying data needs and sources. Just as importantly, the current data base is being regularly updated and changes over time are being plotted

Overall Findings of the 1999 Report

· Income, education, and employment standards in several communities are higher than the national or provincial averages
· Canadian metropolitan areas are undergoing a dramatic transformation into vibrant multicultural societies. Municipal governments and urban communities are continually adjusting their service systems to help ease the newcomers transition to their new society
· Urban communities studied in this report have larger ranges of income inequality and higher incidence of poverty than the national and provincial averages
· A growth and concentration of social problems in major urban centres
· Overall crime rates have been decreasing, but this is volatile and shifting
· Housing is a serious concern, particularly with regards to affordability
· Youth unemployment, and associated low income remains a problem
· Young families are becoming more financially vulnerable

Updated Findings of 2001 Report

· Employment and unemployment rates improved for all age groups
· Wages improved marginally for all age groups
· The proportion of families relying on Employment Insurance and Social Assistance declined
· The drop in incomes experienced by most families between 1992 an 1996 was curtailed, although not reversed
· The decline in poverty rates does not mitigate the increases in poverty of the first half of the 1990's. The income gap has not narrowed.
· Rapid population growth in some of the QOL communities resulted in pressures on community planning for both infrastructure and services.

Social Planning staff have reviewed the report in detail to see how and if these general findings pertain to the situation in Vancouver. For many of the indicators, Vancouver is very much like the rest of the cities in Canada. However, there are some notable exceptions that help to describe the uniqueness of Vancouver and identify specific issues that need the attention of the City and all residents.

Quality Of Life - A Uniquely Vancouver Perspective

1. Population Resources

The age composition of Vancouver's population is comparable to the averages, with two very notable exceptions: Vancouver has the lowest proportion of children under the age of 15, and the highest proportion of young adults, aged 25 to 44. Education levels tend to be higher among 25-34 year olds, and this is reflected in Vancouver's population where the proportion of the population with a university degree is double the national average.

Almost half (44.8%) of Vancouver's population identify themselves as belonging to a visible minority. This compares to a national average of 11.2%. Only Burnaby and Toronto have similarly high proportions of visible minorities at 39.4% and 37.0%, respectively. In Vancouver, there is a very close correlation between visible minorities and the proportion of the population born outside of Canada, suggesting that most of the immigrants to the City are visible minorities. This pattern is not evident in the other cities, where the immigrant population does not consist of such a high proportion of visible minorities.

Although the 2001 report notes that there were a few communities with high population growth in the past two years, specifically Calgary, Peel and York, the growth rate in Vancouver is just a little higher than the national average. However, the composition of that growth in Vancouver is quite unique. (The statistics for net migration are combined for Burnaby and Vancouver, but that helps to make them more comparable to the eastern amalgamated cities). In 1998-1999 30,300 people moved from other countries into Vancouver/Burnaby. But that increase was counter-balanced by 8700 people moving out of Vancouver/Burnaby to other provinces and a further 3650 moving to other locations within the province. Only Toronto had a comparable growth pattern, with an increase of 48,000 moving there from other countries, but with almost the same number leaving to other locations in Ontario.

The labour force replacement ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of children to the number of people expected to leave the labour force over the next 15 years, assuming that the children will, as they get older, replace the people leaving the workforce. The national ratio is 1.05, but in Vancouver it's 0.61. This indicates that there aren't enough children in Vancouver to fill the existing jobs when they become available over the next 15 years; however, the continuing high levels of immigration and the ability to draw on the population from the suburbs may help to deal with this shortfall.

2. Community Affordability Measure (CAM)

The CAM is a new indicator developed by the FCM team to measure community affordability. It is defined as the ratio of median income to the average cost of living. It does not measure communities against an ideal or theoretical standard, but against the aggregate total of all communities in the study. A second indicator, CAM2, was also calculated. It measures affordability for the modest-income population (defined as the half of the population that is below the median income). The higher the CAM figure, the more affordable a community is.

This indicator shows that Vancouver is the least affordable city in Canada (CAM1=0.80, CAM2=0.70). These figures worsened between 1992 and 1996, and again between 1996 and 1998. All other cities, except Toronto and Burnaby had CAM ratios greater than 1.0 (that is, they were more affordable than average). Most communities saw their CAM figures remain static or improve between 1996 and 1998. The low CAM figures for Vancouver result from a combination of the lowest median incomes and the highest average costs. Between 1996 and 1998, average costs in Vancouver did improve, but the declining incomes resulted in continuing affordability problems.

The distribution of income underwent a dramatic change from the beginning of the decade to the last few years. Between 1992 and 1996, the people at the lowest income levels saw losses in real income of more than 20%, middle income people saw their incomes reduced by approximately 10%, and the highest income people experienced modest losses or even some small increases. These patterns were more pronounced in the big urban centres, including Vancouver. Then between 1996 and 1998, this pattern reversed itself in most of the country. Real incomes at all levels increased on average by 5% to 7%, although the increases in QOL cities tended to be a little less. Note, however, that because the increases were fairly consistent across all income levels, the relative gap between low incomes and high remained about the same.

Vancouver (and Burnaby) were the only QOL cities where this pattern did not hold true. In the 1996-1998 period, real incomes of 75% of families actually decreased by as much as 7%, and even the increases in income for the top 25% were less than a fifth of the national average. As a result, the gap between top and bottom incomes worsened. A more detailed analysis of why this occurred is needed, and staff have requested the raw data from the FCM to carry this out.

3. Quality of Employment

Unemployment rates have been generally lower than average in urban centres. In 1996, Vancouver followed this pattern , except that the rate for older workers (over 40 years) was a little higher (8.3% compared to an average of 7.5%). Only two years later, however, the national unemployment rate for all age groups had decreased, whereas in Vancouver it increased for the 40+ age group, tobecome the highest in the country. Not only did the unemployment rate for older workers go up, but the proportion of 40+ year olds experiencing long term unemployment (defined as more than 6 months) rose from 29% to 37%, while the national average dropped from 35% to 31%. This change was particularly pronounced for men, aged 40 and over, where the proportion who were unemployed for long periods rose from 28% in 1996 (which was substantially below the national average) to 47% in 1998, which was 13 percentage points higher than the national average. For women, the proportion who where unemployed for long periods decreased from 30% to 19%.

The employment rate is generally seen as a better indicator than the unemployment rate as it shows how well the economy is generating jobs. Between 1996 and 1998, the national employment rate for all age groups rose by about 1.5%. In Vancouver, the employment rate decreased slightly for the 15-24 year old group and decreased dramatically (from 50.2 to 44.8) for the 40+ group.

In common with most QOL cities, a lower than average percentage of Vancouverites were collecting Employment Insurance in 1996 (18.6 % for husband-wife families in Vancouver, compared to 24.2% nationally). Primarily because of the tightened eligibility requirements for EI, the proportion of the population in most municipalities collecting EI dropped between 1996 and 1998. This also occurred in Vancouver, although the change was less than in most other locations. A similar situation arose with Social Assistance (SA) - nationally, the proportion collecting SA dropped between 1996 and 1998 by 11% for families and 6% for individuals. However, in Vancouver, the proportion of families collecting SA dropped by 39%; for single parent families, it decreased by 20% and for individuals, the proportion getting SA dropped by 28 %. When compared to the declining employment figures, particularly for older workers, this decline in access to the economic safety net may be signalling the emergence of a serious problem

Balancing these figures though is the much higher than average median hourly wages in the QOL cities. For the 15-24 year age group, Vancouver workers received the highest wage rates in the country, and for the 40+ group, the second highest wages.

4. Quality of Housing

The indicators for Quality of Housing in Vancouver are comparable to the national averages all but one significant aspect - affordability. For homeowners in Vancouver, the average owned dwelling is valued at more than 10 times the median income, whereas the national ratio is closer to 3 times. The average price of a single family home in Vancouver is 2 to 4 times that of a similar home in one of the other QOL municipalities. For renters in Vancouver, the average rent is about 25% of the median income, compared to 12-14% elsewhere in the country.

5. Community Stress

These measures monitor selected social problems as well as certain population groups that tend to be vulnerable. However, there are substantial inconsistencies in definitions from one community to another, so comparability of data is difficult.

Lone-parent families are widely recognized as a socially vulnerable group. Vancouver has a higher than average proportion of lone-parent families (16.4%), but is very similar to most of the other urbanareas included in the FCM study. Over the 1996-1998 period, the proportion of single parent families across Canada increased by 1%. This increase also occurred in most of the QOL Study cities, but in Vancouver it went down by almost 2%.

The incidence of low income is closely related to more specific social problems such as poor health, low education and unemployment. Vancouver has the highest proportion in the country of families with incomes below the "low income cut-off" (24.6%). Combined with the higher than average costs of living (indicator #2), especially the costs of housing (indicator #4), there is a serious problem of affordability being faced by a large proportion of Vancouver residents.

Despite the affordability problems, the other Stress indicators show that Vancouver residents are relatively well off. The teen birth rate and suicide rate have consistently remained among the lowest in the country. Business and personal bankruptcies are also at or near the lowest rates.

6. Health of the Community

Modern concepts of health are broad, covering many dimensions of life not covered by traditional health measures. Because components related to population health outcomes are covered in the other QOL indicators, the Health of Community measure is narrowly defined, with only five indicators, to highlight more traditional health concerns.

Vancouver has a slightly higher than average infant mortality rate. Even though this figure usually corresponds with low birth weight figures, but in Vancouver the low birth weight numbers are about average. More research is needed to account for the higher infant mortality rate.

At the other end of the spectrum, Health Canada measures "premature mortality rate", defined as mortality before age 75. The premature mortality rate for most of the QOL cities, including Vancouver, has been consistently higher than the national average. This rate has been slowly going down (by about 10%) in most jurisdictions since 1971, although in Vancouver it decreased by 20%.

The hospital discharge rate in Vancouver is a little above the average for QOL cities, while the work time lost as a result of illness or disability is lowest in the country for younger workers and about average for older workers.

7. Community Safety

Residents' perception of safety is a key indicator of quality of life. Unfortunately, consistent, reliable data on perceptions of residents at the municipal level is not yet available. So the more usual data on crime rates and other facets of safety are presented at this time. Note, however that studies have found that changes in crime rates often are not congruent with people's perceptions about crime. (e.g. Personal Security Index, by the Canadian Council on Social Development, 2000).

Nationally, the rate for property crimes has decreased by 26% since 1991. Similarly, the rate of young offenders charged declined by 36% over the same time period. At least some of this decline can be explained by the relative decrease in the proportion of young people in the population. Therate for crimes of violence also decreased slightly (by 8%) between 1991 and 1996, then levelled out over the next two year period.

The crime rate data for Vancouver is significantly different from the national averages. The rate for property crimes climbed significantly between 1991 and 1996, then dropped to below 1991 rates by 1998. Even at this lower level, the rate of property crimes in Vancouver is still almost three times the national average and is the highest rate in Canada.

On the other hand, crimes of violence have been on a steady decline in Vancouver since 1986; although the rate of violent crimes is still higher than the national average, exceeded only by the rates in Regina and Saskatoon.

Finally, the rate of young offenders charged in Vancouver has dropped by 54% since 1991, to the point where the rate in 1998 was the second lowest in the country. These figures may be reflective of the very low proportion of young people in Vancouver's population.

One explanation for this great difference between Vancouver and other urban centres is that crime rates in suburbs tend to be lower than in city centres. Most of the other municipalities in the study include suburbs within their boundaries, Vancouver doesn't.

The nation rates for hospital discharges and mortality due to injury and poisoning have declined a little since 1991. Over that time period, Vancouver has had the second highest rate of hospital discharges due to injury and poisoning (more than double the national rate). Yet, the rate of mortality from the same causes has decreased by 94%, to a point where it is significantly lower than the average.

8. Community Participation

The indicators in this measure are by no means comprehensive, since this is a multi-faceted dimension of community life. Nevertheless, they are indicators of what some analysts are coming to call "social capital" - the valuable, but hitherto non-quantified, interest in collective community resources and their contribution to social solidarity and cohesion.

Vancouver residents are at the upper end of the range of average charitable donations. Per capita donations to the United Way re about average compared to the other QOL communities, although donations in Toronto and Calgary are about double those in Vancouver.

Summary of Vancouver Differences

· A high proportion of well-educated young adults, earning relatively high wages
· Almost half the population belong to visible minorities; almost all the population growth in the past few years is attributable to international immigration, with most of the immigrants belonging to visible minorities
· There aren't enough children living in Vancouver to fill existing jobs vacated by retiring workers
· The cost of living in Vancouver is the highest in the country; the cost of housing in Vancouver is 2-4 times higher than in the rest of the QOL cities
· In contradiction to the national trend, real incomes for 75% of Vancouver residents have continued to drop; almost a quarter of all families living in Vancouver have incomes below the "low income cut-off"
· The unemployment rate for older workers rose substantially between 1996 and 1998; almost one half of unemployed men over the age of 40 were out of work for more than 6 months
· Compared to other urban centres, the youth crime rate in Vancouver is very low, but violence and property crime rates are very much higher

Implications for Vancouver

The FCM QOL Report shows that Vancouver is pretty typical for a Canadian City, with the exceptions noted above. One important consequence of this finding is that it makes a great deal of sense for Vancouver to work together with all the other cities are that are facing the same social issues and concerns to get the federal and provincial supports needed to address these problems. There is no need to try to re-invent the wheel many times over to deal with a common set of issues. A prime example of the need for this approach is the concentration of poverty and the widening income gap in urban centres. Municipalities, for the most part, do not have the mandate nor the ability to do much about income distribution, yet they face the consequences of Federal and Provincial actions intended to address these issues. Municipal participation in the discussions and program development around income issues may lead to more effective and robust solutions.

The presence of a large number of young, well-educated, relatively well-off residents is a resource that could be better utilized by the City. Some non-profit social service agencies have begun involving these young people in their Boards and as staff, with great success; the City should use be encouraging all community groups to follow this lead. The City itself could also increase its efforts to tap this resource; for instance, by looking to this group when making appointments to committees and boards.

In 1996, almost half of Vancouver residents belonged to a visible minority; in the near future (perhaps it's already occurred), this minority may become the majority. For many social and community activities and organizations, ethnicity is not an issue; but for far too many, it still is. For quite some time, the City has been promoting and implementing programs that ensure equal access to services, fair representation in all aspects of community life and the continuing development of a diverse, multi-cultural society. Despite considerable success, these goals have not been fully achieved. With the increasing numbers of residents who are in the visible "minorities", a new dynamic is emerging whereby some of these groups are now large enough that, when access and inclusion are denied them, they can and do form their own groups to provide services and supports to their own communities. From a community services perspective, this is a problem in that it creates unnecessary competition for funding and a duplication of services. More importantly, it can result in a deeply divided and segregated society. Finding common solutions to shared challenges then becomes increasingly difficult. All of which suggests that the City's actions to promote a strong, cohesive multicultural community need to continue, and possibly be expanded.

The low labour replacement ratio may be an indication of some serious problems that we could be facing in the not too distant future. There are a number of scenarios for how the situation will unfold; the reality will probably be some combination of these. As older workers retire over the next 10-15 years, there could be increasing daily commuting from the suburbs to fill these vacated jobs located in the city. On the other hand, the Livable Region Plan suggests that jobs should be located near residential development, so implementation of that could result in jobs moving out of the city to the suburbs. Another solution to filling the jobs left by retirees is to maintain or increase immigration levels. However, this would probably create the need for increased services to the immigrant communities, with no currently apparent source of funding for these expanded services. Clearly the labour replacement issue cannot be dealt with in isolation by the City; a combined effort by the GVRD and its member municipalities and the others levels of government is needed.

Research literature suggests that there is a strong correlation between income disparity, poverty and crime rates. Vancouver's very high property crime rates, high poverty rates and substantial, and growing, income gap seems to bear this out. This suggests that any strategy for further reductions in the crime rate needs to also take into consideration the income levels of residents - a complicating, difficult factor, but one that needs to be addressed nonetheless.

Conclusion

The FCM QOL project has provided the first opportunity for municipalities across the country to work together to identify common concerns and to highlight those issues that are truly unique to each community. It should help to focus the municipalities' efforts to deal with social issues - some items can best be dealt with in partnership with the other communities that share the same concerns, whereas others need a do-it-yourself approach.

More work needs to be done in terms of refining the QOL indicators and adding others, and each municipality is reviewing the findings in the report to ascertain what specific items they need to pay special attention to. Also, more work needs to be done to get more municipalities involved in the project (particularly larger ones like Montreal and Victoria).

* * * * *

ag010605.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver