Top Banner

Click here to load reader

26

Nipissing District: A Socioeconomic Profile & Reportpublicationslist.org/data/d.plumstead/ref-18/Nipissing District... · demographic and socio-economic trends. • Support DNSSAB’s

Aug 09, 2020

ReportDownload

Documents

others

  • Nipissing District:

    A Socioeconomic Profile & Report

    District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board (DNSSAB), May 2010

  • Purpose The District of Nipissing Social Services Administration Board (DNSSAB) provides essential human services to Nipissing District. These services include Ontario Works, Children’s Services, Housing, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). DNSSAB continues to monitor key demographic and socioeconomic indicators and trends, in order to gain a holistic view of the environment that its clients are living in. By doing so, DNSSAB is able to guide policy and planning that will most effectively meet the needs of its clients. Specifically, this report is intended to: • Update the previous

    socioeconomic profile report (2006)

    • Provide a snapshot of Nipissing’s intercensal progress in key demographic and socioeconomic areas.

    • Inform the Board of high-level demographic and socio-economic trends.

    • Support DNSSAB’s policy, planning and advocacy roles.

    • Inform key stakeholders, service providers and partner organizations, through the dissemination of the data and information.

    Methodology This report updates the previous report, Nipissing District: A Socioeconomic Profile & Report, June 2006. That report provides a snapshot of the district’s key demographic and

    socioeconomic trends through a cross-sectional analysis between two points in time: 1981 and 2001. It also compares the key indicators between Nipissing and Ontario. In this current report, the 2006 census data is added in which provides further indication as to the direction of the trends as well as the change since the last census period (2001). This report also benchmarks Nipissing’s 2006 indicators and trends to Ontario, to see how the district is measuring up to the province.

    Scope The report presents statistics for Nipissing District (see map below). The trend statistics are in the following areas:1

    • Population • Family Households • Income • Labour Force • Housing The benchmark statistics include the above as well as: • Education • Social Assistance

    • Health

    Report Production This report was produced by Dave Plumstead, MBA; DNSSAB Researcher, Special Projects. May 31, 2010.

    Table of Contents Executive Summary…………..3 Section I: Key Trends 1) Population…………………..6 2) Family Households………...6 3) Income………………………7 4) Labour Force……………….9 5) Housing……………………10

    Section II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison 1) Population…………………12 2) Family Households……….15 3) Income……………………..16 4) Labour Force……………...17 5) Housing..…………………..18 6) Education………………….20 7) Social Assistance…………20 8) Health………………………21 References…………………...25

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 2

    http://www.dnssab.on.ca/Report.htmhttp://www.dnssab.on.ca/Report.htm

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following are statements that summarize the key findings of the report. They are intended to update and inform the reader, and to promote dialogue and discussion around some of Nipissing District’s central issues.

    Population The district’s long-term population trend continues to be that of slow, modest growth. On a per-capita basis, the district has close to the same proportions of the general age groups as the province. However, Nipissing has a smaller percentage of children than Ontario and a larger percentage of seniors.

    The population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups. Between 2010 and 2025 Ontario’s population will continue growing at an average rate of 1.3% annually. Nipissing on the other hand, will continue its slow, modest growth trend averaging 0.25% annually over the same period.

    By 2025, Nipissing District’s childrens population will have declined by approximately -1%. This is well short of Ontario’s growth in the childrens population of 19% over the same period. However, within this decline there will be a growth spurt. Nipissing’s children population will start growing in 2017 and this growth will continue until 2025. Whereas Nipissing’s youth population will have decreased 24% by 2025, the provincial decrease will be just 3%. Over the next 15 years Ontario will see its number of core wage-earners grow by 13%. Nipissing District however will see a loss of 3% of its core wage-earning group over the same period. The district’s seniors population will become one and a half times larger over the next 15 years. For the first time ever, there will be more senior citizens in Nipissing District than children and youth combined. There will be a significant demographic divergence between Nipissing District and Ontario over the next 15 years. One of Nipissing’s greatest challenges will be to confront the demographic reality of a declining youth and labour

    force population amidst a growing seniors population.

    Family Households In the past 25 years, the number of households in Nipissing has increased 35.5%. This is far exceeding the population growth rate of 5.5% over the same period. Compared to the province, the district has significantly fewer families with children and more single households, per capita.

    Income In nominal (current) dollars, Nipissing incomes have more then doubled since 1981. In real dollars (adjusted for inflation) however, income growth has remained relatively flat. In 1980, the district’s median income (current dollars) for males was $8,700 higher than for females. And this gender income gap has persisted through to 2005, where the gap stands at $10,800. Median incomes for family households continue to be lower across the board in Nipissing District: In 2005, the district’s median incomes were between 14% - 23% lower than Ontario’s, depending upon the family household type.

    Low Income Cutoff (LICO) The district’s LICO trends are taking a positive turn. There are now fewer individuals and families living below the Low-

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 3

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY income Cutoff line than 25 years ago. In comparison to the province, the district’s prevalence of low income is higher on some counts and lower on others. The district has a lower prevalence of low income amongst families, households and senior citizens. However, the district has a higher prevalence of low income amongst individuals and children 5 years of age and under. In Ontario and Nipissing, individuals have the highest prevalence of low income followed by children 5 years of age and under.

    Labour Force During the 25-year period, the district’s labour force activity has been active in the upper-left quadrant (see figure 7, p.9). This quadrant is characterized by relatively low participation rates (< 63%) and high unemployment rates (6% >). In 1981, Nipissing District’s labour force was comprised of 60% males and 40% females. But 25 years later, this gender gap has narrowed and males and females are now almost equally represented in the district’s workforce. The district continues to experience lower labour force participation and higher

    unemployment than the province.

    Housing Since 2001 the trend is holding steady with approximately 27% of the district’s households not meeting the affordability standard, i.e. they are spending 30% or more of gross income on housing costs. Nipissing District and Ontario have the same percentage of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing. Nipissing District has more per capita renters and fewer owners, spending 30% or more of their income on housing. The incidence of poor housing condition in Nipissing District is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario. Currently North Bay’s vacancy rate is 1.1% which is well below the equilibrium (3%) and provincial rates (3.5%). And the city’s vacancy rate trend has been this way for quite some time.

    Education Compared to Ontario, Nipissing District continues to have a larger percentage of people without a high school education and a smaller percentage of people with a university degree. Additionally, the district has a larger percentage of people with

    a college-level education, and a larger percentage of those with an apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma.

    Social Assistance The share of the population ages 18 years and over that is on Ontario Works (OW) is the same in Nipissing District and Ontario. However, the district continues to have twice the per-capita share of people on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

    The family household composition of the OW and ODSP caseloads is similar in Nipissing District and Ontario. The largest per-capita variation between the district and province can be observed in single households: Nipissing has 4.5% more single households on OW but 5% less single households on ODSP.

    Health People living in the local public health unit area of Nipissing and Parry Sound Districts continue to have poorer health overall, than their counterparts living in Ontario. This is evident in the areas of well-being, health conditions, health behaviours, and life expectancy /death. Compared to Ontario, the incidence of obesity or being overweight is significantly higher in the Nipissing and Parry Sound health area. Approximately 58% of the local

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 4

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY health area’s population ages 18 years and over is obese or overweight vs. 51.5% for the province. The related condition of high blood pressure is also higher than the province by 3%. The local health area also has a significantly higher rate of participation and activity limitation than the province. The Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area has significantly higher rates of daily smoking and heavy drinking than Ontario. The percentage of people who smoke daily and drink heavily in the local health area is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario. The local health area has a significantly higher percentage (10%) of people ages 12 years and over than Ontario, whom participate in leisure-time physical activity. Ontario and the Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area have similar infant mortality and life expectancy rates. The death rate however is 15% higher in the local health area.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 5

  • SECTION I: Key Trends

    1) Population In 2006, Nipissing District’s population was approximately 84,700 people. This represents a 2% increase from the previous census (2001) and a 5.5% increase since the base period (1981). This is a cross-sectional view of population – there have been periods of population stagnancy and decline during the 25 year period as indicated in other reports. But the district’s long-term population trend continues to be that of slow, modest growth. The district’s long-term population trend continues to be that of slow, modest growth. As figure 1 indicates, although the district’s population may be changing modestly over time there are significant

    compositional changes occurring within the population. The number of seniors continues to increase in Nipissing District and they now account for 16% of the population – up from 9.5% 25 years ago. It is estimated that by 2025, approximately 1 in 4 people in Nipissing District will be over 65 yrs.2 Nipissing District’s children population ages 0-14 yrs. continues its downward trend. Whereas children represented approximately one-quarter of the district’s population in 1981, they now represent just 16.5%. However, this age-group will be experiencing a growth spurt starting in 2017. While the district’s youth population had been undergoing decline prior to 2001, this trend appears to have halted for the time being. Between 1981 and 2001, the percentage of youth in

    the district’s population fell from approximately 20% to 13.5%. Since 2001, it has basically held steady at 13.5%. The population projections however, have this youth age-group starting to decline again in the future. Core wage-earners ages 25 – 64 represent the largest age-group in Nipissing District. This age group has been growing since 1981, moving from approximately 47% of the district’s population in 1981 to 54% in 2006. It is projected that the population share of core wage - earners will start to decrease in the future.

    2) Family Households As indicated by table 1, the number of households in Nipissing District continues to grow.

    In the past 25 years, the number of households in Nipissing has increased 35.5%. This is far exceeding the population growth rate of 5.5% over the same period. Households are also becoming smaller in size as the average number of people living in them continues to decrease (from 3 persons /household in 1981 to 2.4 persons in 2006). This increase in the number of

    Table 1 1981 2001 2006 # Households

    26,145 33,200 35,140

    Size (average # persons) 3.0 2.5 2.4

    Change in Population Share of General Age Groups: Nipissing District 1981, 2001, 2006

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    Gen

    eral

    Age

    Gro

    ups,

    % P

    opul

    atio

    n

    75,000

    80,000

    85,000

    90,000

    Tota

    l Pop

    ulat

    ion,

    #

    Children 0-14 yrs. 23.4% 18.6% 16.4%Youth 15-24 yrs. 20.3% 13.5% 13.7%Core Wage Earners 25-64 yrs. 46.8% 53.2% 54.0%Senior Citizens 65+ yrs. 9.4% 14.7% 16.0%Population (total) 80,268 82,910 84,688

    1981 2001 2006

    Figure 1

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 6

  • SECTION I: Key Trends smaller households reflects common family trends that are playing out across the country. In the past 25 years, the number of households in Nipissing has increased 35.5%. This is far exceeding the population growth rate of 5.5% over the same period. These trends include more people living alone, couples having fewer children, and increasing divorce rates. And in turn, these trends are resulting in significant compositional changes within Nipissing’s family households as noted in Figure 2 below. One of the most significant changes underway in the district is the near-doubling of single households since 1981. These

    households have increased by94.5% and

    show no signs of

    owing.

    -year

    sl In terms of the number of families, the district has seen a 21% increase over the 25period. This growth has occurred in two specific family types: families without childr(86.5%) and lone-parents(57.3%). The number of families

    en

    with children in Nipissing District is actualsmaller than 25 yearshaving decreased by

    ly ago

    pproximately 6%.

    me growth has remained relatively

    a

    In real dollars (adjusted for

    inflation) however, inco

    flat.3 Figure 3 shows the 25-year income trend for males living in

    980 ever,

    flation) have actually ecreased during the period.

    Nipissing district.

    These family household trends are likely having significant impacts in many sectors of the community.

    3) Income In nominal (current) dollars, Nipissing incomes have more then doubled since 1981.

    During this period the median income rose nominally from approximately $14,000 in 1to $30,000 in 2005. Howreal incomes (adjusted for ind In nominal (current) dollars, Nipissing incomes have more then doubled since 1981. In real dollars(adjusted for inflation) however, income growth

    as re

    mained relatively

    at. hfl In 2005, the median income for a male in Nipissing District was ctually $1,900 lower than for a a

    male 25 years ago. The income of females living inNipissing District has fared

    Family Household Compositional Change, Nipissing District 1981 - 2006

    0

    5,000

    10,000

    15,000

    20,000

    25,000

    30,000

    Num

    ber o

    f Fam

    ily H

    ouse

    hold

    s

    Families with Children 14,670 14,360 13,815Families without Children 5,975 9,700 11,135Lone Parent Families 2,590 3,740 4,075Single Households 4,835 8,505 9,410Families (total) 20,650 24,050 24,945

    1981 2001 2006

    Figure 2

    Nipissing Median Income, Males: Current and Constant Dollars;

    1980, 2000, 2005

    2,124

    $30,142

    $0

    $

    $1

    $1

    $20,

    $25,

    $30,

    $35, 0

    $1$14,022

    $26,904

    $12,165

    5,000

    000

    000

    000

    5,000

    0,000

    00

    1980 2000 2005Nominal Income (Current $) Real Income (Constant 1980 $)

    Figure 3

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 7

  • SECTION I: Key Trends better in inflationary termthere is still a relativ

    s but ely large

    income gap between the

    81,

    005, the

    pproximately $2,400 higher

    4

    rs

    les.

    e, the

    n, and this is helping to educe the income gap in real

    terms.

    genders.

    Figure 4 shows that since 19the nominal median income for females living in Nipissing District has more then tripled - from approximately $5,300 to $19,000 in 2005. In real terms, female incomes are outpacing inflation – but just. In 2median income for a female inNipissing District was athan for a female 25 years ago. When comparing figure 3 andabove, the difference in medianincome between the gendebecomes evident. In 1980, the district’s median income (current dollars) for males was $8,700 higher than for femaAnd this gender income gap has persisted through to 2005, where the gap stands at $10,800. On a positive nottrend shows that in real terms the gender gap is closing. Female incomes in Nipissing are at least staying ahead of inflatior

    In 1980, the district’s median income (currendollars) for males was $8,700 higher than for females. And this gender income gap has persisted through to 2005, where

    t

    the ap stands at $10,800. g

    As shown by figure 5 Nipissing’s family income trends are similar to those for

    an

    n

    in

    than for a family 5 years ago.

    e

    who are living with relatively

    individuals above.

    Nominally, the district’s medifamily income has increased two and a half times during the 25-year period, from $21,500 i1980 to $58,750 in 2005. But after inflation is factored in the gains are minimal. In 2005 the median income for a familyNipissing District was just $2,100 higher 2

    3.1) Income: LICO The LICO (Low-Income Cutoff) is a relative measuruseful for determining the number of people and families

    low incomes and in marginalized circumstances.4 As shown in figure 6, the district’s LICO trends are taking a positive turn.

    There are now fewer individuals and families living below the Low-income Cutoff line than 25 years ago. It can be noted that the prevalence of low-income is greatest among individuals. On a positive note, the percentage of individuals living below the LICO is decreasing, from 46% in 1980 to just below 40% in 2005. For the 20 years following 1980, the district’s family LICO rate appears to have remained unchanged. However, the LICO rate has since started to decrease, moving from 14% to 11% in 2005. This is a very positive trend indication and the 2011 census LICO data will reveal whether the trend is of significant duration.

    Nipissing Median Income, Females: Current and Constant Dollars;

    1980, 2000, 2005

    $19,309

    $7,767$5,350

    $15,421

    $6,973$0

    $5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000

    1980 2000 2005

    Nominal Income (Current $) Real Income (Constant 1980 $)

    Figure 4

    Percentage of Families and Individuals Living Below LICO in

    Nipissing District: 1980, 2000, 2005

    11.1%

    39.3%

    14.1%14.0%

    43.1%45.9%

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    00 2005

    Nipissing Median Income, Families: Current and Constant Dollars;

    1980, 2000, 2005

    $58,751

    $23,632$21,501

    $49,986

    $22,601

    $0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000

    1980 2000 2005

    Nominal Income (Current $) Real Income (Constant 1980 $)

    Figure 5

    1980 20Families Individuals

    Figure 6

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 8

  • SECTION I: Key Trends The district’s LICO trends are taking a positive turn. There are now fewer individuals and families living below the Low-income Cutoff line than 25 years ago.

    4) Labour Force Given the recent economic turbulence since Oct. 2008, looking at past cross-sectional labour force data may appear to be somewhat unimportant. However, cross-sectional analysis provides ‘snapshots’ in time that can provide valuable insight into important labour force trends – past and present. Figure 7 shows the district’s participation and unemployment rates for the three time periods starting with 1981. The diameter of the circles represents the size of the labour

    force in the respective years, and the chart’s four quadrants show the varying degrees of combined participation and unemployment rates that can exist.5 It can be noted that during the 25-year period, the district’s labour force activity has been active in the upper-left quadrant. This quadrant is

    characterized by relatively low participation rates (< 63%) and high unemployment rates (6% >). During the trend period, participation has ranged between 59.5% - 60.5% and unemployment has been between 8.0% - 9.0%. The preferred direction of the district’s labour force trends is towards the lower-right quadrant which signifies higher participation rates and lower unemployment. Unfortunately however, the district’s labour force trends have yet to show significant movement in this direction.

    During the 25-year period, the district’s labour force activity has been active in the upper-left quadrant. This quadrant is characterized by relatively low participation rates (< 63%) and high unemployment rates (6% >). It’s interesting to note that the district’s labour force grew between each census period as evidenced by the diameter of the circles in the chart. In 1981 the labour force accounted for 45% of the district’s total population whereas by 2006, it was almost 50%. However, whereas the district’s labour force grew as a percentage of the population, its participation rate did not change significantly. While there are many factors that affect participation rates, demographics are certainly one as the labour force is derived from the population 15 yrs. of age and over.6 And during this period the district’s population also grew, with most of the growth occurring in the 15 + years age group (ages 0-14 years actually decreased). This proportional growth in the labour force and population can help to explain the steady participation rates.

    Labour Force Trends; Participation & Unemployment:

    Nipissing District and Ontario, 1981, 2001, 2006

    0.0%

    2.0%

    4.0%

    6.0%

    8.0%

    10.0%

    12.0%

    14.0%

    58.0% 60.0% 62.0% 64.0% 66.0% 68.0%

    Participation Rate

    Une

    mpl

    oym

    ent R

    ate

    High ParticipationHigh Unemployment

    High ParticipationLow Unemployment

    Low ParticipationLow Unemployment

    Low ParticipationHigh Unemployment

    19812001

    2006

    Figure 7

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 9

  • SECTION I: Key Trends 4.1) Labour Force Gender Similar to the income gender gap noted earlier, the district’s labour force gender gap is also closing:

    In 1981, Nipissing District’s labour force was comprised of 60% males and 40% females. But 25 years later, this gender gap has narrowed and males and females are close to being equally represented in the district’s workforce (51.5% and 48.5% respectively). In 1981, Nipissing District’s labour force was comprised of 60% males and 40% females. But 25 years later, this gender gap has narrowed and males and females are now almost equally represented in the district’s workforce. This trend is also playing out at the national level and it will be interesting to see whether or not the trend continues or levels off in the future.

    Education Note: Due to changes in the 2006 census questionnaire, comparing educational attainment levels to prior census periods is no longer accurate for some of the educational components.7 For example, making historical comparisons of the number of people in the district who did not complete high school, or who have a college diploma or trade certificate or diploma, will no longer be comparing “apples to apples”. Given the reduced level of accuracy and the potential for the data to be incorrectly interpreted, educational trends will not be analyzed in this report.

    5) Housing As shown in Figure 9 the proportion of renters and owners in Nipissing District was the same in 2001 as it was in 1981.

    So while there were more households 20 years later, the percentage of owners (66.5%) and renters (33.5%) was the same. Following 2001, the district’s trend shows a shift to higher levels of homeownership

    with the percentage of owners increasing to 67.5% as the percentage of renters decreased to 32.5%. While this is a cross sectional view, the Nipissing Housing Study looked at the district’s tenure rates for all census periods between 1986 and 2006.8 Taking these findings into account, it appears that during the past 25 years the percentage of owners in the district has ranged between 63% - 67.5% while the percentage of renters has ranged between 32.5% - 37%.

    Labour Force Gender Gap, Nipissing District: 1981, 2001, 2006

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    70%

    1981 2001 2006

    Male Female

    Figure 8

    5.1) Housing Affordability One of the national standards of housing affordability (as determined by Canada’s national housing agency, CMHC) is the shelter-to-income-ratio (STIR). According to this standard, for housing to be considered ‘affordable’, housing costs should not exceed 30% of gross income. For renters, the housing costs include rent, utilities and any applicable municipal service costs. For owners, costs include mortgage (including principal and interest), property tax, utilities and any applicable municipal service costs. It should be noted that for homeowners, the STIR may not be as relevant a measure of affordability as owners may choose to spend more than 30% of their income on their housing (for example, to pay off the mortgage faster). Renters

    Housing Tenure Trend, Nipissing District: 1981, 2001, 2006

    05,000

    10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000

    40,000

    1981 2001 2006

    # H

    ouse

    hold

    s

    Owners Renters

    66.4% 66.4% 67.4%

    33.6%

    33.6% 32.5%

    Figure 9

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 10

  • SECTION I: Key Trends however, often don’t have a choice. Figure 10 shows the percentage of the district’s household’s that were paying 30% or more of their income, during the trend period (note: in 1981, the affordability standard was 25% > of income so the data is not directly comparable. As STIR is a relative measure to income however, it is still indicative of housing affordability). In 1981, 17% of the district’s households were paying more than 25% of their income on housing. Twenty years later, although the affordability standard had been increased to 30% > of income, the percentage of households paying more than the affordable limit had increased to 27.5%. In absolute terms, this represented a doubling of households - from approximately 4,500 in 1981 to

    9,100 in 2001.

    ince 2001 the trend is holding

    ding

    igure 10 also reveals that the

    as

    s shown in Table 2, renters are

    of

    le

    ened 20

    district’s renters were spending

    e

    ition

    Ssteady with approximately 27% of the district’s households not meeting the affordability standard, i.e. they are spen30% or more of gross income on housing costs. Fpercentage of owners paying more than the affordable limiton their housing has remained fairly steady since 1981. The majority of the increase between 1981 and 2001 hoccurred with renters. Aover-represented in households spending over the affordable housing limits. In 1981, 21% the district’s renters were spending over the affordabhousing limit vs. 15% for owners. This tenure affordability gap widsignificantly over the next years. By 2001, almost half the

    above the affordable limit on their housing vs. just 17.2% for owners. Since 2001, the percentage of renters and owners spending above thaffordable limits on their housing has remained approximately the same.

    5.2) Housing CondAnother national housing standard relates to the condition of housing. When housing needs major repairs it is considered to be in poor condition and is deemed inadequate.9 As indicated by Table 3

    he district’s d to be

    olding steady with e

    not

    the percentage of thousing that is considerein poor condition has remained fairly steady – it has averaged 10% over the trend period. Since 2001, the trend is happroximately 27% of thdistrict’s householdsmeeting the affordability standard, i.e. they are spending 30% or more of gross income on housing costs.

    Table 2 1981 2001 2006 % of Renters paying 25% / 30% >

    21.0% 48.2% 46.8%

    % of Owners paying 25% / 30% >

    15.1% 17.2% 17.1%

    Table 3 1981 2001 2006 Housing requiring major repair

    9.5% 10.2% 9.7%

    Nipissing's Owners and Renters Paying More Than 30% of Their Gross Income on Housing:

    1981*, 2001, 2006

    10.0% 11.4% 11.8%

    7.1%

    16.1% 15.5%

    0%

    5%

    10%

    15%

    20%

    25%

    30%

    1981* 2001 2006

    % T

    otal

    Hou

    seho

    lds

    Owners Renters

    Figure 10

    17.1%

    27.5% 27.3%

    * 1981 shows the percentage of households paying 25% or more of income on housing.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 11

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison

    1) Population

    Table 4 shows that on a per-capita basis, the district has close to the same proportions of the general age groups as the province. There are notable differences in the children and seniors age groups however. Nipissing has a smaller percentage of children than Ontario (16.5% vs. 18.2%) and a larger percentage of seniors (16% vs. 13.6%). These are contributing factors to Nipissing’s higher median age and dependency ratio, over Ontario.10 On a per-capita basis, the district has close to the same proportions of the general age groups as the province. However, Nipissing has a smaller percentage of children than Ontario and a larger percentage of seniors.

    In order to facilitate a trend comparison between the district and province, Table 5 looks at the change in general groups between the two most recent census periods – 2006 and 2001. Nipissing’s declining children population is significant when compared to Ontario’s (-10% vs. -1% respectively) over the 5-yr. period. Additionally, although Nipissing’s youth population grew between the census periods (4.5%), the growth rate was just half that of the provincial growth rate for youth (9.5%).

    Regarding the older age-groups, the share of core wage-earners in Nipissing District also increased at just half the rate of the province. The district’s increase in the number of seniors is also less than that for the province by approximately 1.5%. It’s interesting to note that since 2001 Nipissing District’s median age has increased 3 years (from 39.2 to 42.2

    years). Ontario on the other hand has seen a smaller increase of 1.8 years (from 37.2 to 39 years). Table 4

    And finally it can be noted that during the 5-year period, Ontario’s population growth rate was three times that of Nipissing District’s. On average, the province’s annual growth rate is 1.3% vs. Nipissing’s annual growth rate of 0.4%.

    In summary, the population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups.

    The population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups.

    Age Groups, 2006 Nip. District

    Ontario

    Children (0-14 years) 16.5% 18.2%

    Youth (15-24 years) 13.5% 13.4%

    Core wage-earners (25-64 years) 54.0% 54.9%

    Sr. Citizens (65+ years) 16.0% 13.6%

    Total 100% 100%

    Median Age (years) 42.2 39.0

    Dependency Ratio 48 46

    Table 5 % Change, 2001 - 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Children (0-14 years)

    - 10.2% - 1.0%

    Youth (15-24 years)

    4.4% 9.6%

    Core wage-earners (25 – 64 years)

    3.7% 7.3%

    Sr. Citizens (65 + years)

    10.4% 12.0%

    Total Population

    2.2% 6.6%

    Median Age (years)

    3 yrs 1.8 yrs.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 12

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison 1.1) Population Projections, 2010-2025 The population growth rates described previously for Nipissing District and Ontario are expected to continue over the next 15 years.

    Figure 11 shows that between 2010 and 2025, Ontario’s population will continue growing at an average rate of 1.3% annually. Nipissing on the other hand will continue its slow, modest growth trend averaging 0.25% annually over the same period.11 Looking at the population projections for the general age groups over the next 15 years is revealing. The provincial and district trends that have been described above will be continuing into the future. However, as figure 12 reveals, some of the age-group trends will accelerate and the divergence between the district and the province will widen. This is particularly evident in the children, youth, and core wage-earning age-groups.

    Between 2010 and 2025, Ontario’s population will continue growing at an average rate of 1.3% annually. Nipissing on the other hand, will continue its slow, modest growth trend averaging 0.25% annually over the same period. Children By 2025, Nipissing District’s childrens population will have declined by approximately 1%. This is well short of Ontario’s growth in the childrens population of 19% over the same period. However, this trend can be viewed in a positive light as it represents a smaller decline in the children’s population then what was stated in the previous socioeconomic

    report (DNSSAB 2006). In that report, the district’s children population was projected to decrease by -11.7% between 2006 and 2025. This was an exponential decrease however, with the majority of the decline occurring in the first 10 years (to 2015).

    Population Projection: Nipissing District and Ontario,

    2010 - 2025

    0%

    5%

    10%

    15%

    20%

    25%

    2011

    2012

    2013

    2014

    2015

    2016

    2017

    2018

    2019

    2020

    2021

    2022

    2023

    2024

    2025Cum

    mul

    ativ

    e ch

    ange

    from

    201

    0

    Nipissing District Ontario

    4%

    19.5%

    Data source: Ontario Ministry of Finance Population Projections, 2008 - 2036

    Figure 11

    By 2025, Nipissing’s childrens population will have declined by approximately -1%. This is well short of Ontario’s growth in the childrens population of 19% over the same period. Based on the updated population projections, the district’s children population is still projected to decline until 2016 but the decrease will be held to approximately -3%.

    Projected Change in the General Age Groups Between 2010 and 2025:

    Nipissing District and Ontario

    -23.9%

    53.8%

    3.9%

    19.1%13.1%

    68.7%

    19.6%

    -2.9%-0.9%

    -3.1%

    -40%

    -20%

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    Children (0-14) Youth (15-24) Core WageEarners (25-64)

    Senior Citizens(65+)

    Total Population

    Nipissing Ontario

    Figure 12

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 13

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison Nipissing’s children population will then start growing in 2017 and this growth will continue until 2025, after which time it will start decreasing again. The growth during this period will be approximately 2%, resulting in a net population loss of -1% over the 15-year trend period. However, within this decline there will be a growth spurt. Nipissing’s children population will start growing in 2017 and this growth will continue until 2025. It’s interesting to note that the growth spurt in the children population between 2017 and 2025 is being attributed to the Echo generation (children of the Boomers) who will be having children during this time.12 In terms of population share, children will represent approximately 14% of the district’s total population in 2025, and 16.5% of Ontario’s total population. Youth Both Nipissing District and Ontario will be experiencing declines in their youth populations over the 15-year trend period. The magnitude of the decline however varies significantly between the two as shown in figure 12. Whereas

    Nipissing’s youth population will have decreased 24% by 2025, the provincial decrease will be just 3%. Whereas Nipissing’s youth population will have decreased 24% by 2025, the provincial decrease will be just 3%. In 2025, youth will represent 10% of the district’s total population, and 11% of Ontario’s total population. Core Wage Earners As shown in figure 12, the projected growth trend for the core wage-earners is headed in different directions for the province and Nipissing District. Over the next 15 years Ontario will see its number of core wage-earners grow by 13%. Nipissing however will see a loss of 3% of its core wage-earning group over the same period. By 2025, core wage-earners will represent 51% of Nipissing’s total population and 52.5% of Ontario’s. When considering the future growth trends amongst the general age-groups, the decreasing number of core wage-earners could be viewed as being the most significant. Invariably this could impact the local labour force and produce ripple effects throughout the

    district’s social and economic sectors. Over the next 15 years Ontario will see its number of core wage-earners grow by 13%. Nipissing however will see a loss of 3% of its core wage-earning group over the same period. Senior Citizens By now the growth in the seniors population is well understood owing to the large amount of information and statistics printed on the subject of ‘the ageing boomers’. What is not well understood is how governments and local communities will deal with escalating health care and other services, required by the ageing population. As shown in figure 12, the district’s seniors population will become one and a half times larger over the next 15 years. For the first time ever, there will be more senior citizens in Nipissing District than children and youth combined. Ontario’s number of seniors will also grow but at an even greater rate than in Nipissing. In Ontario, the seniors population will be two-thirds larger by 2025.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 14

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison The district’s seniors population will become one and a half times larger over the next 15 years. For the first time ever, there will be more senior citizens in Nipissing District than children and youth combined. In terms of population share, it is projected that seniors will represent 1 out of every 4 people in Nipissing District by 2025. In Ontario, seniors will represent 1 out of every 5 people. So although Nipissing’s seniors are projected to increase at a slower rate than Ontario’s, its per-capita share of seniors is projected to be larger. Total Population As indicated by figure 12, Nipissing’s population is projected to grow 4% over the next 15 years. This growth will occur in the seniors age group as the other age-groups (described above) will all post a net decline. Ontario on the other hand is projected to grow by 20% over the same period. This growth will occur across all the general age groups except for youth, where there will be a small decline. To summarize the projected population trends, there will be a significant demographic

    divergence between Nipissing District and Ontario over the next 15 years. One of Nipissing’s greatest challenges will be to confront the demographic reality of a declining youth and labour force population amidst a growing seniors population. There will be a significant demographic divergence between Nipissing District and Ontario over the next 15 years. One of Nipissing’s greatest challenges will be to confront the demographic reality of a declining youth and labour force population amidst a growing seniors population.

    2) Family Households

    Generally the composition of family household types is similar between the district and province. As indicated by figure 13 however, there is a notable

    difference between families with and without children (note: the census definition of ‘children’ used in the context of family households differs than that used for ‘children’ in the general age-groups described earlier – see endnote).13

    Nipissing District has fewer couples with children on a per-capita basis (27.5% vs. 35.5% respectively), and more couples without children (31% vs. 26%). So when compared to the province, the district has significantly fewer families with children, per capita. Additionally, the district has a larger share of single households compared to the province (26.5% vs. 23.5%). Compared to the province, the district has significantly fewer families with children and more single households, per capita.

    Family Household Types: Nipissing District and Ontario; 2006

    3.3%

    3.2%

    26.5

    %

    11.5

    %

    31.3

    %

    27.4

    %

    23.6

    %

    11.6

    %

    26.0

    %

    35.6

    %

    0%5%

    10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

    Cou

    ples

    with

    child

    ren

    Cou

    ples

    with

    out

    child

    ren

    Lone

    -par

    ent

    fam

    ilies

    Sin

    gle

    hous

    ehol

    ds

    Oth

    er n

    on-

    fam

    ilyho

    useh

    olds

    % F

    amily

    Hou

    seho

    lds

    Nipissing District Ontario

    Figure 13

    It can be noted that the shares of lone parent families and ‘other non- family’ households, is the same in Nipissing and Ontario (note: ‘other non-family households’ include those who share housing, but who, do not constitute a family. Single households are also in this category). Table 6 looks at the change in family household types for Nipissing and Ontario, between

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 15

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison the two recent census periods – 2006 and 2001.

    Earlier in the report it was noted that the number of couples with children in Nipissing District is on the decline. The table above reveals that this is a counter-trend to the province. So while the district’s share of couples with children decreased by - 8% during the period, the provincial share grew by 4%. The opposite family type to this - couples without children - increased in Nipissing District by 14.9% over the same period. This out-paced the provincial increase of couples without children by approximately 5%. Based on the premise that these family trends will continue into the future, Nipissing will continue to have fewer families with children relative to the province. Regarding lone-parent families, the district has had less of an increase then the province since 2001. And the increase in the percentage of single households

    was the same in both Nipissing and Ontario. And finally, Nipissing district has had a relatively large increase in other, non-family households. This household type represents a small number of the district’s total family households (see figure 13). Nevertheless, as these households are rather unconventional (i.e. people who share housing but are not a family) their relatively large increase is worth noting.

    3) Income The income disparity between Nipissing District and Ontario persists.

    Figure 14 reveals that median incomes for family households continue to be lower across the board in Nipissing District. In 2005, the district’s median incomes were between 14% - 23% lower than Ontario’s, depending upon the family household type. Table 7 is also revealing as is shows the greater dependence on government transfer

    payments - as a percentage of total income composition - in Nipissing District. Median incomes for family households continue to be lower across the board in Nipissing District: In 2005, the district’s median incomes were between 14% - 23% lower than Ontario’s, depending upon the family household type.

    3.1) Income: LICO In comparison to the province, the district’s prevalence of low income is higher on some counts and lower on others.

    Figure 15 shows that the district has a lower prevalence of low

    Table 6 % Change, 2001 - 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Couples Without Children

    14.9% 9.7%

    Couples With Children

    - 8.2% 4.3%

    Lone Parent Families

    9.0% 11.2%

    Single Households

    11.2% 11.4%

    Other Non Family Households

    24.6% 5.0%

    Total Family Households

    5.9% 8.0%

    Table 7 Reliance on Government Transfer Payments 2005

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Individuals

    27.8% 15.5%

    Families

    13.7% 8.8%

    Median Incomes for Family Households: Nipissing District and Ontario (2005)

    $0

    $20,000

    $40,000

    $60,000

    $80,000

    Nipissing $23,509 $58,751 $46,788 Ontario $27,258 $72,734 $60,455 % lower than ON -13.8% -19.2% -22.6%

    Individuals Families Households

    Figure 14

    Prevalence of Low Income in Nipissing District and Ontario,

    2005

    7.2

    28.4

    10.3

    18.5

    3.35.9

    27

    11.114.8

    8.6

    05

    1015202530

    Families Individuals Households Children 5years and

    under

    Seniors (65+ years)

    Prev

    alen

    ce o

    f Low

    Inco

    me

    (%)

    Nipissing Ontario

    Figure 15

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 16

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison income amongst families, households, and senior citizens. However, the district has a higher prevalence of low income amongst individuals and children 5 years of age and under. In comparison to the province, the district’s prevalence of low income is higher on some counts and lower on others. The district has a lower prevalence of low income amongst families, households, and senior citizens. However, the district has a higher prevalence of low income amongst individuals and children 5 years of age and under. In both Nipissing and Ontario, the prevalence of low income varies considerably between subgroups. Individuals have the highest prevalence of low income followed by children 5 years of age and under. Families and households experience the next highest prevalence of low income while seniors experience the lowest. Individuals have the highest prevalence of low income followed by children 5 years of age and under.

    4) Labour Force Nipissing district’s labour force activity is very different from that of Ontario’s. This statement is supported by figure 16 which reintroduces the labour force chart from page 9 but with Ontario now added.

    Figure 16 shows that during the three reference periods, Ontario’s labour force activity has been in the middle of the two right-hand quadrants. This area of the chart is characterized by high labour force participation (63% >) and relatively low unemployment rates (< 6%). In contrast with Nipissing’s labour force activity during the same periods (marked by the opposite of low participation and high unemployment), this represents a fundamental difference in labour factivity.

    orce

    Although the above are cross-sectional points in time, the participation and unemployment patterns support the

    claim that the district continues to experience lower labour force participation and higher unemployment than the province. The district continues to experience lower labour force participation and higher unemployment than the province.

    Labour Force Trends, Participation & Unemployment: Nipissing District and Ontario;

    1981, 2001, 2006

    0.0%2.0%

    4.0%

    6.0%

    8.0%10.0%

    12.0%

    14.0%

    58.0% 60.0% 62.0% 64.0% 66.0% 68.0%Participation Rate

    Une

    mpl

    oym

    ent R

    ate High ParticipationHigh Unemployment

    High ParticipationLow Unemployment

    Low ParticipationLow Unemployment

    Low ParticipationHigh Unemployment

    19812001

    2006

    Figure 16

    2006 2001

    1981

    4.1) Labour Force by Industry Figure 17 shows the industry structure of Nipissing District and Ontario in 2006.

    0% 5% 10% 15%

    Retail Trade

    Health Care & Social Assistance

    Accommodation & Food Services

    Public Administration

    Educational Services

    Manufacturing

    Transportation & Warehousing

    Construction

    Admin. & Support, Waste Manage.,

    Other Services

    Prof., Scientific & Tech. Services

    Wholesale Trade

    Finance & Insurance

    Industry, NA

    Agr., Forestry, Fishing & Hunting

    Real Estate, Rental & Leasing

    Information & Cultural Industries

    Arts, Entertainment & Recreation

    Mining, Oil and Gas

    Utilities

    Management of Companies

    % Labour Force by Industry, 2006

    Nipissing

    Ontario

    Figure 17

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 17

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison Specifically, the chart is showing the percentage of the respective labour forces that work in the main industry sectors, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). It can be noted that generally the chart is similar to the one in the previous socioeconomic report, although there are some differences worth noting. In terms of labour force share by industry sector, the top three sectors in Nipissing District are retail trade (13%), health care and social assistance (12.5%), and accommodation and food services (8.5%). These three sectors combined employ one-third of the district’s labour force. Ontario’s top three industry sectors (also employing approximately one-third of the provincial labour force) are manufacturing (13.5%), retail trade (11%), and health care and social assistance (9.5%). Manufacturing continues to be the sector that has the largest variation in labour force share between the district and province. As noted by figure 17 Nipissing District’s manufacturing sector has half the labour force share (7%) per capita, as Ontario’s manufacturing sector (14%). Other notable variations in industry sector labour force share include the sectors of public administration,

    In terms of labour force share by industry sector, the top three sectors in Nipissing District are retail trade (13%), health care and social assistance (12.5%), and accommodation and food services (8.5%). These three sectors combined employ one-third of the district’s labour force. Ontario’s top three industry sectors (also employing approximately one-third of the provincial labour force) are manufacturing (13.5%), retail trade (11%), and health care and social assistance (9.5%). educational services, and transportation and warehousing. Nipissing has between 1.5 % - 3% more labour force share in these sectors, than the province. On the flip side, Nipissing has between 3.5% -1.5% less labour force share in the sectors of professional, scientific and technical services, wholesale trade, and finance and insurance. In all the remaining industry sectors there is less than a 1% difference in labour force share, between Nipissing District and Ontario.

    Nipissing District’s manufacturing sector has half the labour force share (7%) per capita, as Ontario’s manufacturing sector (14%).

    5) Housing As shown in table 8, housing tenure rates are different in Nipissing District and Ontario.

    Table 8

    Nipissing has approximately 3.5% more renters and 3.5% fewer owners, than Ontario.

    5.1) Housing Affordability Table 9 shows that in terms of the national housing standard of affordability, Nipissing District and Ontario have the same percentage of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.

    Housing Tenure, 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Renters

    32.5% 28.8%

    Owners

    67.4% 71.0%

    Table 9 Housing Affordability, 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    % of households paying 30% >

    27.3% 27.6%

    % of Renters paying 30% >

    15.5% 12.8%

    % of Owners paying 30% >

    11.8% 14.7%

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 18

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison However, it can be noted that the rate of affordability differs between the respective tenure groups. Nipissing District has more per capita renters, and fewer owners, spending 30% or more of their income on housing. Nipissing District and Ontario have the same percentage of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.

    5.2) Housing Condition As mentioned earlier in the report, housing that is in poor condition violates the national housing standard of adequacy. Thus any housing - rental or ownership - that needs major repairs is considered to be in poor condition and inadequate for living. Table 10 reveals that the incidence of poor housing condition in Nipissing District is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario. And owners represent the larger share of total households living in poor housing conditions

    Nipissing District has more per capita renters, and fewer owners, spending 30% or more of their income on housing. in both the district and province. However, when taken as a percentage of the total households of each respective tenure group, renters are found to be over-represented in poor housing conditions in both the district and province, as shown by table 11.

    And again, the district’s incidence of poor housing condition for renters and owners is higher than the province’s. The incidence of poor housing condition in Nipissing District is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario.

    5.3) Rental Apartment Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates for rental apartments are a key indicator of rental supply and demand in a given community. A vacancy rate of 3% is generally accepted as the healthy equilibrium point for the rental housing market. Vacancy rate data is published by CMHC for the North Bay CA.14Although the data is not available for Nipissing District, it is a valuable housing indicator for the district’s urban centre - the city of North Bay. Currently North Bay’s vacancy rate is 1.1% which is well below the equilibrium (3%) and provincial rates (3.5%). And the city’s vacancy rate trend has been this way for quite some time as evidenced by figure 18.

    In 2004 North Bay’s vacancy rate dipped below the provincial rate. Then the following year it also dipped below the equilibrium rate where it has remained ever since.

    Table 10 Housing Condition, 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Housing requiring major repair 9.7% 6.6%

    Renters requiring major repair 4.0% 2.9%

    Owners requiring major repair 5.7% 3.6%

    Table 11 Housing Condition, 2006

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    % Renters requiring major repair, out of total renter households.

    12.2% 10.0%

    % Owners requiring major repair, out of total owner households

    8.5% 5.1%

    Vacancy Rate Trend for North Bay CA and Ontario, 2000 - 2009

    0%

    1%

    2%

    3%

    4%

    5%

    6%

    2000

    2001

    2002

    2003

    2004

    2005

    2006

    2007

    2008

    (Apr)

    2008

    (Oct)

    2009

    (Apr)

    2009

    (Oct)

    Ave

    rage

    Vac

    ancy

    Rat

    e

    North Bay Ontario

    1.1%

    3.5%

    Figure 18

    Source: Whereshome 2005; CMHC Ontario Market Analaysis Centre and Rental Market Reports.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 19

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison Currently North Bay’s vacancy rate is 1.1% which is well below the equilibrium (3%) and provincial rates (3.5%). And the city’s vacancy rate trend has been this way for quite some time.

    6) Education In terms of educational attainment levels between the province and district, little has changed since the last socioeconomic report and the 2001 census. As shown in figure 19, Nipissing District continues to have a larger percentage of people without a high school education and a smaller percentage of people with a university degree. On the flip side, the district has a larger percentage of people with a college-level education, and a

    larger percentage of those with an apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma (note: due to changes in the 2006 census methodology concerning educational attainment, direct comparisons between the various educational levels between 2001 and 2006 is not recommended – see endnote 7). Nipissing District continues to have a larger percentage of people without a high school education and a smaller percentage of people with a university degree. The district has a larger percentage of people with a college-level education, and a larger percentage of those with an apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma.

    7) Social Assistance As noted by table 12, the share of the population ages 18 years and over that is on Ontario Works (OW) is the same in Nipissing District and Ontario. However, the district continues to have twice the per-capita share of people on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). This anomaly has been evident since it was first identified in the 2005 ODSP report.

    Table 12

    The share of the population ages 18 years and over that is on Ontario Works (OW) is the same in Nipissing District and Ontario. However, the district continues to have twice the per-capita share of people on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). 7.1) Social Assistance Family Households Ontario Works (OW) The family household composition of the OW

    Social Assistance Caseload, per-capita; Dec. 2009

    Nip. District

    Ontario

    Ontario Works (OW)

    2.5% 2.3%

    Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)

    5.4% 2.6%

    Education Attainment Levels in Nipissing District and Ontario, 2006

    0%

    5%

    10%

    15%

    20%

    25%

    30%

    % P

    opul

    atio

    n 15

    yea

    rs +

    Nipissing 26.9% 11.1% 22.4% 12.1%Ontario 22.2% 8.0% 18.4% 20.5%

    No certificate, diploma or degree

    Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma

    College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma

    University certificate or degree (bachelor level or

    higher)

    Figure 19

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 20

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison caseload is similar in Nipissing District and Ontario as shown in figure 20.

    Singles without children represent the largest share of the OW caseload in both areas, although the district has 4% more single households on the caseload than the province. Singles with children represent the next largest share of OW caseload, with the province having a larger share over the district by 2.5%. Ontario also has 2% more couples with children on the OW caseload but the same percentage of couples without children, as Nipissing District. Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) The family household composition of the ODSP caseload is also similar in Nipissing District and Ontario as shown in figure 21. As with OW, singles without children represent the largest share of the ODSP caseload in both areas. In contrast to OW

    however, the province has 5% more single households on the caseload than the district. The remaining household types account for similar shares of the ODSP caseload depending on the area. Nipissing has a slightly larger share than the province of each of the remaining household types i.e. singles with children, couples with children and couples without children.

    To summarize, the family household composition of the OW and ODSP caseloads is similar in Nipissing District and Ontario. The largest per-capita variation between the district and province can be observed in single households: Nipissing has 4.5% more single households on OW but 5% less single households on ODSP. To summarize, the family household composition of the OW and ODSP caseloads is similar in Nipissing District and Ontario.

    The largest per-capita variation between the district and province can be observed in single households: Nipissing has 4.5% more single households on OW but 5% less single households on ODSP.

    Family Household Types on OW in Nipissing District and Ontario,

    Dec. 2009

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    % O

    W C

    asel

    oad

    Nipissing 62.5% 28.4% 6.2% 2.9%Ontario 58.2% 30.7% 8.2% 2.9%

    Singles without children

    Singles with children

    Couples with children

    Couples without children

    Figure 20

    8) Health Family Household Types on ODSP in Nipissing District and Ontario,

    Dec. 2009

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    % C

    asel

    oad

    Nipissing 72.1% 9.4% 6.7% 11.8%Ontario 77.3% 8.6% 5.8% 8.3%

    Singles without children

    Singles with children

    Couples with children

    Couples without children

    Figure 21

    Note: Health data in Ontario is reported for the province or for health regions (Public Health Units and LHINs), which have different geographical boundaries then census divisions (such as districts). The local public health unit area covers most of Nipissing District (excluding Temagami, South Algonquin and part of Nipissing Unorganized South) and all of Parry Sound District. Thus the following health data is for the local public health unit area. The data in this section is sourced from the Statistics Canada Health Profiles. The primary data sources are the Canadian Community Health Survey and Canadian Vital Statistics.15 The Canada Health Profiles (2008) list 52 health indicators in various categories.16 The local public health unit area ranks unfavorably compared to

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 21

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison Ontario on approximately two-thirds of these health indicators. Based on this premise, the people living in the local public health area of Nipissing and Parry Sound Districts, continue to experience poorer health outcomes than their counterparts living in Ontario. This is evident in the areas of well-being, health conditions, health behaviours, and life expectancy /death as captured in the Canadian Community Health Profiles. The following tables show 21 selected health indicators in the areas of well being, health conditions, health behaviours, and life expectancy /death. Six of these indicators are significantly higher than Ontario.17 These particular indicators are located in tables 14 and 15 and are highlighted in grey. Well-being

    Table 13 shows the well-being health indicators for the local public health unit area and Ontario. The local health unit area has 2.7% fewer people than Ontario who feel their health is “very good or excellent”. Where mental health is concerned, the difference between the two areas is smaller. The Nipissing and Parry Sound health area has 1.6% fewer people who feel their mental health is “very good or excellent”. Interestingly, there are 3.6% fewer people in the local health area who perceive that “most days in their life were quite a bit or extremely stressful” (life stress). People living in the local public health unit area of Nipissing and Parry Sound Districts continue to have poorer health overall, than their counterparts living in Ontario. This is evident in the areas of well-being, health conditions, health behaviours, and life expectancy /death. Health Conditions Table 14 shows some of the health conditions for the local public health unit area and Ontario (only selected indicators are shown).

    Compared to Ontario, the incidence of obesity or being overweight is significantly higher in the Nipissing and Parry Sound health area. Approximately 58% of the local health area’s population ages 18 years and over is obese or overweight vs. 51.5% for the province. The related condition of high blood pressure is also higher than the province by 3%. Compared to Ontario, the incidence of obesity or being overweight is significantly higher in the Nipissing and Parry Sound health area. Approximately 58% of the local health area’s population ages 18 years and over is obese or overweight vs. 51.5% for the province.

    Table 13 Well-being, % of the population ages 12 >

    North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit

    Ontario

    Perceived health, very good or excellent

    56.6% 59.3%

    Perceived mental health, very good or excellent

    73.1% 74.7%

    Perceived life stress (pop. ages 15 yrs. >)

    18.7% 22.3%

    Table 14 Health Conditions, % of the population

    North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit

    Ontario

    Overweight or Obese 57.9 51.6

    Overweight, 40.1 34.5

    Obese 17.8 17.1

    High blood pressure

    19.7% 16.6%

    Participation and activity limitation

    36.4% 29.6%

    Low birth weight 5.1% 5.7%

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 22

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison The related condition of high blood pressure is also higher than the province by 3%. The local health area also has a significantly higher rate of participation and activity limitation than the province. Approximately 36% of the local health area’s population ages 12 years and over, reports being limited in certain activities (such as home, school, or work) due to a physical or mental condition or health problem. On a more positive note, the local health area has a slightly smaller percentage of low birth weights in comparison to Ontario. The local health area also has a significantly higher rate of participation and activity limitation than the province. Health Behaviours Table 15 shows health behaviour indicators for the local public health unit area and Ontario. It can be noted that there is a statistically significant difference between the two areas for all the indicators. The Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area has

    significantly higher rates of daily smoking and heavy drinking than Ontario.18 The percentage of people who smoke daily and drink heavily in the local health area is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario.

    But although a larger percentage of the local health area residents are smoking and drinking compared to their provincial counterparts, there is also a significantly higher percentage who are eating fruits and vegetables five or more times per day!19 The Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area has significantly higher rates of daily smoking and heavy drinking than Ontario. The percentage of people who smoke daily and drink heavily in the local health area is approximately one and a half times that of Ontario.

    Also on a positive note, the local health area has a significantly higher percentage (10%) of people ages 12 years and over than Ontario, whom participate in leisure-time physical activity. It’s interesting to note this indicator in contrast with the indicator in table 14 regarding participation and activity limitations. The indicators suggest that while people in the local health area are more active in leisure activities they are also more likely to experience activity limitations in other activities (home, school, work, etc.) than their provincial counterparts.

    Table 15

    The local health area has a significantly higher percentage (10%) of people ages 12 years and over than Ontario, whom participate in leisure-time physical activity. Life Expectancy /Death Table 16 on the following page shows life expectancy and death rates by disease for the local public health unit area and Ontario (note: the data in the table is from Canadian Vital Statistics, 2002. The data has not been updated since the previous socioeconomic report, 2006).

    Health Behaviours% of the population ages 12 >

    North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit

    Ontario

    Daily smoking 21.5% 15.4%

    Heavy drinking 22.8% 15.5%

    Fruit and vegetable consumption

    48.0% 40.5%

    Leisure time physical activity

    59.6% 49.5%

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 23

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison

    Infant mortality is “a long-established measure, not only of child health, but also of the well-being of a society”.20 Given the relevance of this measure to societal well-being, it is encouraging to see that the local health area is on par with the province. The local health area and the province are also close in terms of life expectancy, although Ontarians live slightly longer. Residents of Nipissing and Parry Sound Districts can expect to be outlived by their provincial counterparts by

    approximately one and a half years. Where the Nipissing and Parry Sound health area starts to diverge from the province is in the incidence of death. Table 16 reveals that the death rate in the local health area is approximately 15% higher (or 88 /100,000 people) than the province. And the death rate is higher for all the major diseases. It can also be noted that deaths resulting from unintentional injuries (car /transport, falls, fires, etc.) is 66% higher (or 15 /100,000 people) than the province. Suicide rates however are similar between the local health area and province. To summarize, Ontario and the Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area have similar infant mortality and life expectancy rates. The death rate however is 15% higher in the local health area. Ontario and the Nipissing and Parry Sound local health area have similar infant mortality and life expectancy rates. The death rate however is 15% higher in the local health area.

    Table 16

    Life Expectancy /Deaths

    North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit

    Ontario

    Infant mortality, per 1000 live births

    5.7 5.4

    Life expectancy, # years

    78.1 79.7

    Deaths (all causes), per 100,000 population

    686.3 597.8

    Cancers, per 100,000 population

    187.6 176.2

    Circulatory diseases, per 100,000 population

    232.8 205.0

    Respiratory diseases, per 100,000 population

    56.0 44.6

    Unintention-al injuries, per 100,000 pop.

    37.1 22.3

    Suicides, per 100,000 population

    7.9 7.7

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 24

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison

    References 1 Education is not being included in the trend analysis of this report due to data limitations – see p. 10 and note # 7 below. 2 Based on population estimates from the Ministry of Finance: Population by 5-year age-group, 2008-2036 – Reference scenario – Census divisions in Northeastern Ontario. 3 Incomes have been adjusted for inflation using the Ontario CPI, 1980-2009 (2005 basket, all-items; 2002=100). Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 326-0021. 4 Low Income Cutoffs (LICO) are income levels whereby individuals or families are spending 20% more than average of their income on food, shelter and clothing (Statistics Canada, 2006 census definition). 5 The chart’s axes cross at points that are approximations of the middle points between the upper and lower thresholds of participation and unemployment. For example, 6% unemployment in Ontario can be considered a middle-low rate based on the province’s historic unemployment trend. Additionally, unemployment below this rate could be considered as approaching “full” employment. A participation rate of 63% or above is considered a medium rate based on the historical participation trends for Ontario. 6 The labour force is comprised of people ages 15 years and over who are either employed or unemployed. 7 The education questions in the 2006 census were significantly changed from the 2001 census. These changes to the questionnaire included new questions as well as conceptual changes to existing questions. This

    impacts the historical comparability of some of the education questions (Statistics Canada Education Reference Guide, 2006 Census). 8 Nipissing District Housing Needs, Supply & Affordability Study. DNSSAB 2008; p. 72. 9 “Major repairs” refer to the repair of defective plumbing or electrical wiring, structural repairs to walls, floors or ceilings, etc. (Statistics Canada, 2006). 10 The dependency ratio is the number of the dependant population (children and seniors) relative to the supporting population (core wage-earners ages 25-64 years). As such, it is a general measure of how well a population can look after itself. 11 The difference in growth rates can largely be attributed to the difference in the components of population change: migration and natural increase. Ontario’s population growth is expected to come from net migration (68%) and natural increase (32%). Nipissing District however has minimal net migration and no natural increase (in fact, it has negative natural increase). Ref: Ontario Ministry of Finance, Population Projections, 2008-2036; Highlights. 12 Ontario Ministry of Finance; Ontario Population Projections 2008-2036, Highlights. 13 When the term ‘children’ is used in the general age-groups, it refers to children ages 0-14 years. However, when ‘children’ is used in conjunction with family households then it refers to the census definition of children. Under this definition, children can be from 0 years of age to over 25 years (however, the majority are under 25 years of age).

    14 The North Bay CA includes East Ferris, Bonfield, and Callander. The North Bay CA (excluding Callander which is in Parry Sound District) represents 70% of the district’s population and households. The rural areas of East Ferris and Bonfield have relatively few rental apartments. 15 Statistics Canada. 2009. Health Profile. Catalogue No. 82-228-XWE. Ottawa. Released June 25, 2009. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) reports on the health status of Canadians ages 12 years and over, across the country’s 121 health regions. The survey is a voluntary sample survey of 65,000 Canadians. It does not include people living on reserves, institutional residents, or full-time members of the Canadian Forces. The CCHS data in this report is from the 2008 survey. The Canadian Vital Statistics data is from Statistics Canada, 2000 to 2002. 16 In total there are 74 indicators in the 2008 Health Profile. However, one of these is classified under “personal resources”, seven are under ‘living and working conditions” and 14 are under “community”. For the purpose of this report, these 22 indicators are not included in the count. 17 The notion of statistical significance pertains to the degree of probability in which an event or outcome happened by chance (not statistically significant), or not by chance (statistically significant, i.e. by association or causative factors). Within the context of this report, there are health indicators that are ‘significantly higher’ in the local health area compared to Ontario. This suggests that there are underlying associations and causal factors involved which result in these different health outcomes. 18 Daily smoking refers to those who reported being a current smoker and smoking cigarettes every day. The

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 25

  • SECTION II: Nipissing District and Ontario Comparison number of cigarettes smoked is not accounted for by this indicator. Heavy drinking refers to those who reported having 5 or more drinks on one occasion, at least once per month in the past year. Ref: Statistics Canada Health Profile definitions. 19 Refers to the number of times per day a person reported eating fruits and vegetables. This indicator does not account for the quantity of fruits and vegetables consumed. Ref: Statistics Canada Health Profile definitions. 20 Statistics Canada Health Profile definition for Infant Mortality.

    DNSSAB Research, May 2010. 26

    Purpose Methodology Scope Report Production Table of Contents The population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups. Family Households Income Low Income Cutoff (LICO) Labour Force Housing Education Social Assistance Health 1) Population 2) Family Households 3) Income 3.1) Income: LICO 4) Labour Force 4.1) Labour Force Gender Education 5) Housing 5.1) Housing Affordability 5.2) Housing Condition 1) PopulationIn summary, the population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups. The population trends of Nipissing and Ontario since 2001 are similar in direction but different in magnitude. Nipissing has seen a much steeper decline in its children population. And the district’s youth and core wage-earning populations have grown at just half the provincial rate for these respective age-groups. 1.1) Population Projections, 2010-2025 2) Family Households 3) Income 3.1) Income: LICO 4) Labour Force 4.1) Labour Force by Industry 5) Housing 5.1) Housing Affordability 5.2) Housing Condition 5.3) Rental Apartment Vacancy Rates 6) Education 7) Social Assistance

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.