Guide to the poverty map of families with children under the age of eighteen on the

Guide

to the Poverty Map of Families with Children under the Age of 18 on the island of Montréal

2013 Poverty MAP oF the CoMité de Gestion de lA tAxe sColAire de l’île de MontréAl

1

ReseaRch and WRiting dominique sévigny, research, Planning, and development officer

secRetaRiat Ginette Pelletier, Administrative technician

Graphic production of the guide: tonik Groupimage translation: traduction-Québec

© All rights reserved – Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal

legal deposit, fourth quarter 2013 Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec library and Archives Canada isBn 978-2-921593-38-0

table of contents chapteR 2 – 2013 poveRty Map of the coMité de gestion de la taxe scolaiRe de l’île de MontRéal

foReWoRd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 intRoduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 chapteR 1 – education in undeRpRivileged aReas 1.1

socio-economic underprivilege Concept . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2

impact of socio-economic underprivilege on Academic success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1

dividing the island of Montréal into Zones . . . . . . . . . .11

2.2

overall socio-economic underprivilege index . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.2.1

target Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.2.2

variables of the overall underprivilege index . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.2.3

overall underprivilege index. . . . . .18

2.3

Presentation of the 2013 Poverty Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

2.3.1

Map of the island of Montréal . . . .20

2.3.2

Map of vaudreuil-soulanges rCM . .20

2.3.3

Maps of neighbourhoods on the island of Montréal . . . . . . . .23

chapteR 3 – Methodology 3.1

Configuration of the Base Map . . . .68

3.2

Choice and Weighting of variables used to Calculate the overall underprivilege index . . . . . . . . . . .70

3.3

relationship Between the overall underprivilege index and non-Graduation or slow Academic Progress, per Zone . . . .72

3.4

Comparisons Between the 2013 and 2008 Poverty Maps . . . . . . . . .75

conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 RefeRences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

foReWoRd For more than 40 years, the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal has supported school boards on the island of Montréal within the context of education in underprivileged areas. to accomplish this mission, the Comité de gestion has created a tool for understanding Montréal’s urban fabric: the Poverty Map of Families with Children under the Age of 18 on the island of Montréal. this is the eighth map to be produced by the Comité de gestion; the first was published in 1975. the map and its guide are placed at the disposal of school boards on the island of Montréal and the general public. the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped update the poverty map: • the Coordinating committee of educational catch-up measures in underprivileged areas, which comprises representatives from each of the five school boards on the island of Montréal; • the Direction de la statistique et de l’analyse quantitative of the Régie des rentes du Québec and, more specifically, Mr. François Fortin.

4

intRoduction one mandate of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal is to distribute, among the school boards on the island of Montréal, funds from the additional school taxes collected and the investment income earned to implement educational catch-up measures in underprivileged areas on the island of Montréal. to carry out this responsibility, the Comité de gestion produces and uses a knowledge instrument: the Poverty Map of Families with Children under the Age of 18 on the island of Montréal. this instrument has two fundamental components: the base map and the overall underprivilege index. Both of these components have been updated from the most recent and reliable information available. the Comité de gestion is pleased to present its latest poverty map, based on data from the 2011 national household survey and the 2011 Canadian Census conducted by statistics Canada, as well as on data provided by the régie des rentes du Québec. the guide for this eighth edition of the poverty map is divided into three chapters, which are as follows: • education in underprivileged areas socio-economic underprivilege concept and its impact on the academic success of young people. • 2013 poverty Map of the comité

de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal results obtained in terms of the base map update and the overall underprivilege index as well as concerning the geographic distribution of underprivileged families on the island of Montréal.

• Methodology Approach and methods used to develop the 2013 poverty map. the publication of this new poverty map allows us to take a fresh look at the disturbing phenomenon arising from the socio-economic underprivilege concept and its impact on the likelihood of academic success on the part of young people. it also allows us to renew our commitment to educational catch-up measures in underprivileged areas. 5

1

eduCAtion in underPrivileGed AreAs

6

chapteR 1

education in undeRpRivileged aReas 1.1 socio-econoMic undeRpRivilege concept socio-economic underprivilege corresponds to a state of disadvantage measured by comparing the socio-economic conditions of individuals and of groups of individuals. this state of disadvantage signifies “having less” than the average or than most people with whom the comparison is being made; when this “having less” results from socioeconomic conditions, we see less income, less education, less access to the job market, and less participation in community life. the poverty of “having” is often accompanied by a poverty of “being,” such as the loss or lack of self esteem or of the recognition of others and a poverty of “ability,” such as the ability to act on or influence one’s physical or social environment. there are numerous negative consequences of socio-economic underprivilege, and they are not limited to physical deprivation. they include food insecurity, poor housing conditions, physical and mental health problems, developmental delay in children, and social isolation. the effects of underprivilege are more present and more significant when it is prolonged, extending over several years, rather than temporary – resulting from short-term loss of employment, for example.

underprivileged areas the poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal allows us to compare the level of underprivilege of families with children under the age of 18 according to their place of residence. the goal of the map is to identify underprivileged areas, i.e., the geographic sectors on the island of Montreal where the socioeconomic conditions of families are unfavourable. these underprivileged areas may present

different characteristics depending on the causes of underprivilege that have shaped them: 1 • concentration of single-parent families; • chronic unemployment; • recent immigration – high turnover of households when those who improve their financial situation leave the underprivileged areas; • a combination of these causes. it is also useful to distinguish two types of underprivileged areas: poverty pockets and underprivileged neighbourhoods.1 A pocket of poverty or social exclusion is a small concentration of underprivileged populations within a wealthier neighbourhood. Most middleclass or rich neighbourhoods on the island of Montreal have pockets of relative poverty; likewise, some underprivileged neighbourhoods have blocks of wealthier households.1 underprivileged neighbourhoods occupy larger areas with concentrations of major social problems such as unemployment, poverty, singleparent families, and crime.

contex effect Whatever their socio-economic status, the attitudes and behaviour of individuals are influenced by their immediate environment, whether that be their work environment, school environment, or neighbourhood. in any given socio-economic environment, the codes of conduct and the values that underlie them generally emanate from the groups that are in authority or in the majority. in environments where education is valued and academic failure is viewed negatively, the chances for success and graduation are much higher.

7

in neighborhoods, Poverty and Children’s Wellbeing : A review, Anne r. Pebley et narayan sastry observe that growing up in a poor neighbourhood has a negative impact on the well-being and development of children, and that impact is felt over and above that of the family’s socio-economic status. Many experts believe that residential segregation is a key mechanism in the intergenerational transmission of inequality. they attribute this to the fact that restricting families to neighbourhoods where there is a concentration of poverty reduces their chances of escaping it. indeed, in poor neighbourhoods, the cost of housing is low, the risk of being the victim of a criminal act is higher, there are fewer well-paid jobs, exposure to disease and drug abuse is greater, and individuals are more socially isolated. so residential segregation, associated with the fact of living in a neighbourhood with a high concentration of poverty, could be a significant determiner of the family’s socio-economic status and thus have a major indirect influence on the well-being and development of children.9 the concentration of underprivileged populations within an area generates a mass effect that handicaps people who are already made vulnerable by their economic or family situations. this concentration of underprivilege has a significant impact on the composition of educational environments.1 in accordance with his epidemic theory, Jonathan Crane hypothesizes that the relationship between the quality of neighbourhoods and the incidence of social problems should not be linear. social problems should increase with the decline of neighbourhoods, but not at a constant rate. this rate should rise abruptly when the quality of the neighbourhood creates the most problems. in fact, the prevalence of problems should be much higher in neighbourhoods that have suffered an epidemic than in others. this epidemic theory implies that neighbourhoods exert a strong influence on residents, at least when their quality is at its lowest level.5 Families living in poverty pockets would thus at lower risk of developing a culture of poverty than are those living in underprivileged neighbourhoods, where the dominance of the socio-economic status affects behaviour, the social dynamic is different, and the context effects are necessarily present.1

8

1.2 iMpact of socio-econoMic undeRpRivilege on acadeMic success socio-economic underprivilege leads to marginalization and social exclusion. For young people, non-participation in community life primarily means non-participation in school life. indeed schooling is the key permitting children from underprivileged families to eventually escape their condition and experience upward mobility.2,4 there is a link between underprivilege and: 2,17,18 • school changes; • delayed development in terms of language and school readiness; • hyperactivity. there is also abundant evidence that the cumulative effects of the family situation have profound repercussions on the children’s education level. studies carried out in the united states and the united Kingdom have systematically shown that factors linked to the children’s family situation are also closely tied to the likelihood that they will drop out of school. these factors include: • the socio-economic status: children from poor neighbourhoods are more likely than others to leave school early; • the family structure: children from large and single-parent families are more likely than others to drop out; • the parents’ employment status: children whose parents are unemployed are more likely than others to abandon their studies altogether. in general, these studies show that the link between dropping out of school and the socio-economic status appears early in life, varies with the age of the child, and persists until high school.5 Closer to home, a Québec study has found that there was a correlation between the number of risk factors, including a low family income as well as the low education level of the mother, and the risk of delayed development in children.19

studies have also revealed that the neighbourhood has an impact on cognitive abilities during childhood and on school dropouts, even when differences in the socio-economic characteristics of families are controlled. Most studies in this area focus on older children since it is presumed that the neighbourhood’s impact on school-aged children is stronger because of their greater involvement in the community. nevertheless, it appears that the characteristics of the community and the neighbourhood also have a significant influence on maintaining a healthy development during early childhood in every area linked to school readiness. several characteristics of the neighbourhood interfere with school readiness: difficulty speaking the official language, a low percentage of adults having completed high school, a low income, a low level of social cohesion, and unsafe conditions in the neighbourhood.8,10,18,19 the geographic concentration of underprivilege can result in a concentration of underprivileged students within certain schools. in the public system, students generally attend primary schools close to their homes; therefore, schools in underprivileged areas will have underprivileged school populations.

9

2

2013 Poverty MAP oF the CoMité de Gestion de lA tAxe sColAire de l’île de MontréAl

10

chapteR 2

2013 poveRty Map of the coMité de gestion de la taxe scolaiRe de l’île de MontRéal the 2013 Poverty Map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal is composed of two fundamental elements: the base poverty map and the overall underprivilege index. these two components have been updated and adapted to the socio-demographic evolution of the territory served by the school boards on the island of Montréal. this includes the island of Montréal and the vaudreuil-soulanges regional County Municipality (rCM), where the english-speaking population is served by the lester B. Pearson school Board.

2.1 dividing the island of MontRéal into Zones the base map shows the division of the territory. the territory served by the school boards on the island of Montréal has been subdivided into 481 zones. each zone is home to an average of 459 families with children under the age of 18. A zone is defined as a collection of smaller areas known as dissemination areas, each sharing common socio-economic characteristics. the overall underprivilege index was calculated per zone. As zones include dissemination areas that are not necessarily adjacent, the 2013 poverty map must be read in terms of dissemination areas rather than zones. As a result, the poverty map shows the boundaries of the 3,386 dissemination areas covering the island of Montréal and the vaudreuilsoulanges rCM.

2.2 oveRall socio-econoMic undeRpRivilege index 2.2.1 target population the population targeted by the poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal is composed of families with children under the age of 18 living on the island

of Montréal or in the vaudreuil-soulanges rCM, which corresponds to the area served by school boards on the island of Montréal. these families may also have one or more children of full age living at home.

children in census families For a child to be considered a family member, they must be living with one or both of their parents. this includes grandchildren living with at least one of their grandparents in a household where the parents are absent.

2.2.2 variables of the overall underprivilege index the overall underprivilege index is composed of four variables: family income, mother’s education, female lone-parent families, and parents’ economic activity. the data used to calculate the overall underprivilege index were taken from three sources: the 2011 Canadian Census, the 2011 national household survey, and the Child Assistance Program set up by the régie des rentes du Québec. statistics Canada was responsible for collecting and disseminating census data as well as data collected from the national household survey.

11

family income data from the “income” variable have been collected from the régie des rentes du Québec and pertain to families with children under the age of 18 eligible to the Child Assistance Program. this program is universal, even the wealthiest families may receive a minimum allocation. nevertheless, all families must reside in Québec and have filed a tax return to benefit from the program. the “income” variable combines two sets of data: • the median net annual income of eligible families; • the percentage of families receiving the maximum amount. the median income is located at midpoint on the income scale. half of the families have a higher income and the other half have a lower income. the data used correspond to the average median net annual income for 2010 and 2011. Families eligible to the maximum amount under the Child Assistance Program are the most underprivileged families in terms of revenue. the amount allocated varies according to household income and the number of children under the age of 18 living with the family. this amount is indexed on a yearly basis. the parameters that

allow establishing the amount allocated are the same across the province of Québec. data that pertain to the percentage of families receiving the maximum amount correspond to the average of the percentages reported in 2011 and 2012, and are based on the net household income for 2010 and 2011. table 1 allows for the comparison of the median net annual income of families with children under the age of 18 living on the island of Montréal with that obtained for similar families across Québec. Based on the ratio between the value computed for the island of Montréal and that for the province as a whole, in 2008, the median income of families living in Montréal only amounted to 74% (0.74) of the median income for all Québec families. Moreover, the situation of families living in Montréal seems to have slightly gone down over recent years when compared to the rest of the province. therefore, since 2010, the median income of Montréal families only represents 72% (0.72) of the median income for all Québec families. that being said, it is likely that the discrepancies found in tables 1 and 2 have been slightly overestimated given the underrepresentation of wealthier families on the island of Montréal.

table 1 Median net annual income of families eligible to the Régie des rentes du Québec child assistance program year

island of Montréal

province of Québec

Ratio: island of Montréal/ province of Québec (e.g., 41,063 ÷ 55,411)

2008

$41,063

$55,411

0.74

2009

$40,898

$56,200

0.73

2010

$41,582

$57,763

0.72

2011

$43,327

$60,304

0.72

Source: Régie des rentes du Québec. Ratios calculated by the CGTSIM.

12

table 2 compares the situation on the island of Montréal with that observed in the province as a whole as regards the percentage of families with children under the age of 18 who receive the maximum amount from the Child Assistance Program; i.e., families with the lowest income. over recent years, the percentage for the island of Montréal has constantly been higher than that reported for the province of Québec. in addition, the discrepancy between the two is also larger and larger every year. in 2009, the island of Montréal recorded 35% more (1.35) than the percentage reported for the province, while it was 42% more (1.42) in 2012.

table 2 percentage of families with the Maximum amount from the Régie des rentes du Québec child assistance program (amount based on the net family income of the previous year) year

island of Montréal

province of Québec

Ratio: island of Montréal/ province of Québec (e.g., 49.6 ÷ 36.7)

2009

49.6%

36.7%

1.35

2010

50.0%

36.4%

1.37

2011

49.4%

35.3%

1.40

2012

48.1%

33.9%

1.42

Source: Régie des rentes du Québec. Ratios calculated by the CGTSIM.

studies led in Canada have shown that children living in poverty are more often affected by delay in language development, poor academic performance, and are more likely to leave school before completion of secondary studies.28 Based on data from the national longitudinal survey of Children and youth, household income is a significant predictor of 6 of the 11 readinessto-learn measures in children aged 5. in every case, children from lower income households scored lower than their counterparts who lived in more affluent households in terms of receptive vocabulary, communication skills, knowledge of numbers, copying and using symbols, attention, and cooperative play.29 A summary of American studies has allowed comparing underprivileged children with other children. it appears that the risk of being held back and dropping out of school before completion of secondary studies is twice as high. they are also more likely to suffer from learning disorders and may present mental health or behaviours problems reported by parents. Moreover, children from underprivileged families are clearly more likely to live in poverty as adults than are children from wealthier families. Poverty is allegedly passed on from generation

13

to generation and, even in times of economic upswings, such populations fail to improve their situation.30

Mother’s education the “mother’s education” variable is defined as the highest degree, diploma, or grade completed by the mother. For instance, a high school diploma may also be a certificate, a certification, or a trade school diploma. two categories have been held for this variable: • the percentage of families where the mother has no high school diploma or any equivalent, among families with children under the age of 18 and where the mother is present; • the percentage of families where the mother has no post-secondary diploma or any equivalent, among families with children under the age of 18 and where the mother is present.

the data found in tables 3 and 4 show how the mother’s education has evolved between 2006 and 2011. the situation has improved both on the island of Montréal as well as in Québec and Canada as a whole. in 2011, the percentage of mothers without a high school diploma on the island of Montréal (11.0%) compared to the Québec average (10.6%). the percentage of mothers without a postsecondary diploma is clearly lower on the island of Montréal than it is in the province of Québec as a whole (table 4). it is also lower than the Canadian average. in 2011, a total of 37.8% of mothers residing on the island of Montréal did not have a post-secondary diploma, while the Québec average amounted to 43.2%.

table 3 percentage of families With a Mother Without a high school diploma or any equivalent among families With children under the age of 18 census year

island of Montréal

Québec average

canadian average

2006

13.3%

13.4%

12.5%

2011

11.0%

10.6%

10.0%

Source : Statistics Canada, 2006 Canadian Census and 2011 National Household Survey. Note: Data prior to 2006 Census are not comparable.31

14

table 4 percentage of families With a Mother Without a post-secondary diploma or any equivalent among families With children under the age of 18 census year

island of Montréal

Québec average

canadian average

2006

41.7%

47.5%

44.2%

2011

37.8%

43.2%

39.6%

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Canadian Census and 2011 National Household Survey. Note: Data prior to 2006 Census are not comparable.31

the education of parents, particularly that of the mother, is an efficient predictor of academic success.5,8,15 the education of both parents has an influence on students’ academic aspirations, while the education of the mother is closely linked to academic performance, namely results for the mother tongue. in all oeCd countries, for young people, the fact of having a mother who has completed upper secondary studies represents an advantage for results in written comprehension, with a marked advantage when the mother has completed university. Consequently, results are significantly lower when the mother has not achieved completion of secondary studies. When parents have high expectations, children invest more effort and academic results are higher. high aspirations on the part of the parents, early on in preadolescence, have positive effects when it comes to persistence in school. school drop-outs report lower aspirations from their mother. Additionally, school drop-outs are more likely to come from a family with parents who dropped out as well, which suggests once more that family standards and aspirations do play somewhat of a role. students whose parents have positive aspirations with respect to post-secondary studies tend to follow this path. on the other hand, students whose parents fail to express such aspirations are more likely to interrupt their studies as soon as they have obtained their high school diploma. high aspirations are particularly important for teenagers from underprivileged areas.24,25,26

15

data collected from the Québec longitudinal study of Child development reveal that children with a mother who has not completed postsecondary studies are more likely to suffer from delayed development in language than those whose mother holds a non-graduate postsecondary diploma. in turn, the latter are at a disadvantage compared with children whose mother has completed university.17

female lone-parent the “female lone-parent” indicator corresponds to the percentage of single-parent families headed by a female among families with children under the age of 18. A lone-parent family could also

be composed of a grandparent living with one or more grandchildren in a household where the parents are absent.7 table 5 shows how the percentage of singleparent families headed by a female has evolved over a 10-year period. table 5 also shows the Montréal percentage in that regard versus the Québec and Canadian averages. the percentage dwindled progressively on the island of Montréal, from 24.2% in 2001 to 22.1% in 2011. Conversely, the Québec and Canadian averages both went slightly up during the same period. nevertheless, the percentage on the island of Montréal remains higher than the Québec and Canadian averages.

table 5 percentage of single-parent families headed by a female among families with children under the age of 18 census year

island of Montréal

Québec average

canadian average

2001

24.2%

18.3%

17.6%

2006

22.9%

18.6%

18.0%

2011

22.2%

18.7%

18.5%

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Census. Note: Data from years prior to 2001 Census are not comparable.7

16

studies carried out in the united states and the united Kingdom have shown that the family structure is closely tied to the likelihood that children will drop out of school or not: children from large and single-parent families are more likely than others to drop out.5 According to studies conducted in France, irrespective of the social environment, academic performance is lower in children with parents who are no longer together. the separation of the parents before their children turn 18 shortens the duration of schooling from six months to more than one year on average. even the academic advantage conferred from growing up in a privileged home from a cultural and social standpoint is significantly weakened in the event of separation. in the case of children whose parents are manual workers, with a mother who doesn’t hold a diploma and who is separated from the father, one in two (50%) will drop out without obtaining a diploma against only one in three (37%) when parents are still together. similarly, children of parents who are salaried employees have completed studies in a lower proportion when their parents are divorced. in the case of a mother with a diploma, the percentage of children who haven’t obtained a diploma is 22% in the event of separation, while it is only 11% when parents are still together.27 A wide range of proposals have been put forth as a means to explain the correlation between family structure and the education level of young people. the low income of single-parent families

remain a major influence. however, when asked why they dropped out, young people state that it was due to the stress experienced at home; hence, stress caused by the disintegration of the family exposes students to greater risk. one researcher has even demonstrated that the effect of stress is greater during the initial transition toward single parenthood, and diminishes over time. the absence of the father is linked to less parental supervision, which could be related to limited persistence in school. When the father is no longer present, the mother often enters the labour market and is less available for parental supervision.25

parents’ activity the “parents’ activity” variable corresponds to the percentage of families where neither parent works full time among families with children under the age of 18. in the case of lone-parent families, only the activity of the single parent is taken into account. Parents who have not worked or who have worked less than 30 hours during the reference week are not considered as full-time workers. hours away from work (with or without pay) during the week due to illness, vacations, or other reasons are not accounted for.7 table 6 shows that the percentage of families where neither parent worked full time was higher in 2011 than it was in 2006. namely, the percentage attributed to the island of Montréal clearly outweighs the Québec and Canadian averages.

table 6 percentage of families Where neither parents Worked full time during the Reference Week, among families with children under the age of 18 census year

island of Montréal

Québec average

canadian average

2006

24.6%

17.2%

17.0%

2011

26.3%

17.8%

18.4%

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Canadian Census, and 2011 National Household Survey.

17

the parents’ employment situation may have a major impact on family resources; e.g., revenue. in comparison with a more stable situation, a reduction in the number of full-time workers in the family unit is more likely to cause entry into low revenue, while an increase in the number of full-time workers is likely to make the exit most probable.21 the parents’ activity can also have an influence on their children’s development. An unstable work situation and unemployment generate stress for parents, which prevents them from being warm and loving, not to mention that it brings about erratic behaviours as well as emotional withdrawal. ineffective parenting may cause the child to have limited capacities to adapt. Children with unemployed parents are more likely than others to drop out of school. however, the effect is allegedly not as important when the head of the family receives employment insurance, which suggests that financial difficulties in families may influence the children’s decision to drop out of school in order to enter the labour market.5,23 Furthermore, a study has shown that high school children who perceive that their parents are worried due to their employment situation are distracted congnitively and get lower academic results. how children perceive their parents’ employment situation may condition their perception as to their own economic opportunities for the future. this viewpoint may exert an influence on their academic performance and their attitude vis-à-vis school and employment.22 there are also exist neighbourhood effects related to the employment status of parents. it was found that the likelihood of dropping out with relation to the quality of the neighbourhood increases in a linear way until the percentage of people with high-status jobs falls below 5%. At such point, there is a marked and disproportionate increase in the number of drop-outs in the most underprivileged neighbourhoods. Moreover, it was observed that when a large number of lay-offs occur in a community, even adults who continue their employment or who are not at grips with financial hardships are more likely to experience depression, stress, or anxiety. Financial worries may alter the quality of the interactions between children and the adults who are important to them, such as teachers, friends’ parents, and obviously, their own parents. researchers have

18

highlighted major and systematic negative effects on the academic performance of such students. it is to be noted that these effects tend to get worse as the child matures and better understands the situation.5,20

2.2.3 overall underprivilege index the overall underprivilege index combines the values obtained for each of the four variables in a single measure. the method used to calculate the index assigns greater weight to the “family income” variable than to the others. in fact, the “family income” variable represents half of the total weight (50%), while the other three variables share the other half equally, with each one accounting for 16.67% of the total weight (Figure 1). the overall underprivilege index thus corresponds to the weighted average of the values attributed to each of the four variables (see section 3.2).

figure 1 Weight allocated to variables in the overall underprivilege index Family income 50%

Parents’ Activity 16.67%

Mother’s education 16.67% Female lone-Parent 16.67%

levels of socio-economic underprivilege

us to clearly indicate the index values for each dissemination area on a map. each level of underprivilege is associated with a specific colour and a descriptive label (table 7).

the values in the overall underprivilege index have been divided into six categories, or levels, using the nested averages method. this allows

table 7 characteristics of levels of socio-economic underprivilege number of Zones

% of Zones

average index

Minimal value of index

Maximum value of index

high concentration

55

11.4

64.762

59.708

77.283

Moderate concentration

99

20.6

53.811

48.328

59.543

100

20.8

43.121

37.508

48.193

Moderate presence

86

17.9

31.441

26.093

37.265

Weak presence

85

17.7

19.091

12.401

25.996

Minimal presence

56

11.6

7.869

3.219

12.244

481

100.0

37.357

3.219

77.283

level of underprivilege

strong presence

total

figure 2 average global index by level of underprivilege average global index 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 hight concentration

Moderate concentration

strong presence

Moderate presence

Weak presence

Minimal presence

level of underprivilege

19

2.3 pResentation of the 2013 poveRty Map the 2013 poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal uses six colours to indicate the level of underprivilege of families with children under the age of 18. the colours vary from brick red, for a high concentration, to dark green, for a minimal presence of underprivilege. A concentration of underprivilege is considered more problematic than its mere presence since it refers to higher index values.

2.3.1 Map of the island of Montréal the map showing the entire island of Montréal shows locations where underprivilege is concentrated. some neighbourhoods, such as Parc-extension, saint-Michel, Montréal-est, sainte-Geneviève, Montréal-nord, Pointesaint-Charles, hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and saint-henri, are coloured entirely, or almost entirely, in light or brick red. however, there’s no direct correspondence between the extent of a dissemination area and the number of families who live there: a large dissemination area may very well be home to few families, while a small dissemination area may be home to a considerably large number of families. in other words, the population density may vary significantly from one area to another. there are also many places indicating a social mix, where two adjacent areas may show drastically different colours, such as red and green.

comparability of the 2013 poverty Map with the 2008 poverty Map the current map shows an overall distribution of underprivilege on the island of Montréal similar to that found in the previous map. however, the results obtained for both maps are not quite comparable as the methods used to calculate the index and the distribution of zones per underprivilege level are different (see section 3.4). visually, the current map has more red dissemination areas, although this does not necessarily mean that socio-economic underprivilege has expanded on the island of Montréal.

20

nevertheless, by transforming the distribution of the zones per underprivilege level on the current map so that it fits that of the previous map, it becomes possible to pinpoint the neighbourhoods which have evolved in terms of the concentration of underprivilege on their territory. All that is required is to bear in mind that we are referring to the relative position of the neighbourhood with relation to other neighborhoods, which does not necessarily imply that the situation of this neighbourhood has worsened or improved since 2008. neighbourhoods which relative position has worsened are as follows: Anjou, dollard-desormeaux, lachine, lasalle, Montréal-est, Pierrefonds, sainte-Geneviève, and saint-Michel. neighbourhoods which relative position has improved are as follows: Ahuntsic, Centre-sud, Côte-saint-Paul, hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Mercier-est, notre-dame-de-Grâce, PetiteBourgogne, Petite-Patrie, Plateau Mont-royal, saint-Pierre, ville-émard, ville-Marie, and villeray.

2.3.2 Map of vaudreuil-soulanges RcM that map shows the geographic distribution of underprivilege in the vaudreuil-soulanges rCM.

Île d

e Mo

level of undeRpRivilege

ntréa

Minimal presence

islAnd oF MontréAl

l

poveRty Map of faMilies With childRen undeR the age of 18

Weak presence Moderate presence strong presence Moderate concentration high concentration Few or no family

île bIzaRD

Nive

au d

e dé

favor prés isatio ence n minim prés ence e faible prés en prés ce modé en ré conc ce impor e entra tante tio conc entra n modé ré t i peu ou p on impor e as de tante famil les

RIvIèRe DeS pRaIRIeS Parc onne uv

Mais

Parc

e

fleuve SaINT-lauReNT

Jarry

laC DeS Deux-MoNTaGNeS

Pa Lafo rc ntain e

Ci Côte metière -des -Neig es

Cana

ine l Lach

Parc

Angr

ignon

île DeS SŒuRS

laC SaINT-louIS sourCes: réGie des rentes du QuéBeC, Child AssistAnCe ProGrAM; stAtistiCs CAnAdA, 2011 Census And 2011 nAtionAl household survey.

poveRty Map of faMilies With childRen undeR the age of 18

level of undeRpRivilege

vAudreuilsoulAnGes rCM

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence strong presence Moderate concentration high concentration

PointeFortune

MRC Vaudreuil-Soulanges

Few or no family

Hudson

Rigaud

L'Île-Cadieux

VaudreuilDorion

Très-Saint-Rédempteur

Vaudreuilsur-le-Lac

Saint-Lazare

L'Île-Perrot

Sainte-Marthe

Terrasse-Vaudreuil

Pincourt

Sainte-Justine-de-Newton

Vaudreuil-Dorion

Saint-Clet

Notre-Dame-del'Île-Perrot

Les Cèdres

Coteau-du-Lac

Pointe-des-Cascades

Saint-Télesphore Saint-Polycarpe

Niveau de défavorisation Les Coteaux

Saint-Zotique Rivière-Beaudette

sourCes: réGie des rentes du QuéBeC, Child AssistAnCe ProGrAM; stAtistiCs CAnAdA, 2011 Census And 2011 nAtionAl household survey.

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

2.3.3 Maps of neighbourhoods on the island of Montréal the following maps paint a more accurate picture of the distribution of underprivilege in neighbourhoods* on the island of Montréal. readers who wish to consult the map of a specific neighbourhood may turn directly to the correct page:

neighbourhoods

page

neighbourhoods (cont’d)

page

Ahuntsic

24

Parc-extension

49

Anjou

25

Petite-Bourgogne

50

Baie-d'urfé

26

Petite-Patrie

51

Beaconsfield

27

Pierrefonds

52-53

Cartierville

28

Plateau Mont-royal

54

Centre-sud

29

Pointe-aux-trembles

55-56

Côte-des-neiges

30

Pointe-Claire

57

Côte-saint-luc

31

Pointe-saint-Charles

50

Côte-saint-Paul

32

rivière-des-Prairies

58

dollard-des-ormeaux

33

rosemont

59

dorval / île-dorval

34

roxboro

33

hampstead

35

sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue

26

hochelaga-Maisonneuve

36

sainte-Geneviève

40

Kirkland

37

saint-henri

32

lachine

38

saint-laurent

60

lasalle

39

saint-léonard

61

l'île-Bizard

40

saint-Michel

62

Mercier-est

41

saint-Pierre

45

Mercier-ouest

42

senneville

26

Montréal-est

43

snowdon

35

Montréal-nord

44

verdun (including île-des-soeurs)

63

Montréal-ouest

45

ville-émard

32

Mont-royal

46

ville-Marie

64

notre-dame-de-Grâce

47

villeray

65

outremont

48

Westmount

66

* in this document, neighbourhood boundaries correspond largely to those on a map produced by the office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (2002). these may not always coincide with generally accepted administrative, social, or historic boundaries.

23

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

AHuntSic

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

La

ros

Sa int -M ich el

e

ou de L

si

Po rt

-R o

ya l

rio l Sa u

Br uc hé

va in

Ch am p

rtig ny

Sa uv é

Ma

do ré

ille

de

ain t -F i rm in

Pri eur

de S

bin

de L

i-B o

He nr

Go u

in

Ahuntsic

ura ssa

An d ré - Jo

de

Ga rni er

Fleu ry

de R

24

b

-G ras se t

Le ge nd re

urn aul t e

eim s

Jea nne -Ma nce

Me illeu

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

Ém ileJo

Por t-Ro yal

t

azi

r

ure n

r

Cré m

ille u

An dré

pin ea u

ém Cr

ie az

Niveau de défavorisation

eau har noi s

Me

nt-L a

Pa

ess e

de B

é

Sai

Leg end re

ca r

Cla rk de l'Es pla nad e Tol hur st Ver ville

aur aul t

Hu b e rt

Laj eun

Cha ban el

Poi n

gua y

Allé e

Sa uvé

Tan

uni er

Prie ur

Me

Sai nt-

Sai nt-D eni s

Gra nde -

ierM

Chr isto phe -Co lom

de

in ou G

Oliv

Fleu ry

Hen ri-B our ass a

Sau

riol

Prie

ur

de Lou vai n

Oly mpi a

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Anjou

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Je an -D

s

e

org e Ge

uf Château ne

de

la L

des An

rm ea ux

oire

gevins

révost Yves-P Fo nta ine

Ro ser aie s

'An

jou

aM ali

des

Do na t

co rne

Lo uis -H .-L a

Ga leri esd

Sa int -

de l

tiq

les

de sO

Merria am

ue

'An jou

-Z o

ies -d

int

Ga ler

Bél ang er

les

Sa

s

ce

rai n

l'A lsa

sR ive

de

de

es qu

es pre z

Ro i-R en é

de la Lo ire

Wilffrid-P elletier

e

Be au bie n

Fon tain

po l i ta ine

.-La

Mé t ro

Lou is-H

Lé v

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

25

bAie-d’urFé, SAinte-Annede-bellevue And Senneville

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Baie-D'Urfé, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue et Senneville

Senneville

Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue

An ne

des A nc

iens-C omba ttants

Baie-D'Urfé

Sa in

te-

Niveau de défavorisation

Maple SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

26

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

beAconSField

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Beaconsfield twell Char

Alton

Elgin

k

erst Amh

p ure Bea

aire

W

Elm

illo wb roo

n

La kes

City

o Mead

Elm

e

d woo

Montrose

rook

ill on H

Ken

am Markh

Park

r we To

to n Pres

g r ee E v er

arles

le

h St-C

Cast

ft ncro Alla

e

oft stcr We

Mo

os ntr

rb She

Beac

ho re

ok wbro

ood

Angell

Brentw Church

B ea

field cons

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

shore

Lake

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

27

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

cArtierville

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

To up in

Go uin

du

-G

ne

nt

er m

ai

Be au -B oi s

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

28

Sauvé

sa

t-R éal

-Bo ura s

or ric La e ur en tid es

de l'A ca die

Du de m ai

e S ai

Lo ui sb ou rg

La ure nti en

De

uin Go

re ne t

nt -É va ris t

ain

n

de

G

de s

Sa la be rr y

Sa i

es -M

de S

He nri

u in Go

Du dem

Ja m

ain e

V ie l

Cartierville

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

centre-Sud

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

el a

ga

uen

Ga sco

ue

m

lle

Ro

llu

n

Po up art

du Ha vre

nt

-Dam e

Sa

int e

Notre

Lo ga n

ve

e ue

rin

es q -L év

Re né

ine

de l'H ôte l-d e-V

Ant o

Sa int -D en is

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

ille

Sai nt-

au re

t

he rst

Ga uch etiè re

t-L

ine

-A nd ré

Am

Niveau de défavorisation

de la

Ontar io

Sa in

ng u

um

eu nn iso De Sa int

Sa

er

ath e

l

m Sa int Sa -A int nd -T ré im oth ée

Ma

ntc a

mi

-C

Mo

int e

Ont a

ion

Fu ll

ea u

Sa

Vis ita t

on ta

ine

Pa pin

La F

la

rio

de

Ple ss is

de Lo ri

De Ma iso nn eu ve

On tar io

-C a th

eri

ne

de

Fu

n

Ho ch

D' I be rvi

Ro

Centre-Sud

n

de

Ho ga

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

29

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

côte-deS-neigeS

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

t

Northcrest

Glencoe

C la nra na ld

ya lm

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

Sig

hts

de P

olyt ech niqu e

tit ontp e ardM Édo u

Swa il

uis Dup

Cim

es

u de Nivea

on

orisati

défav

s

Neige

-des-

Côte etière

Que en-M ar y

oria

Gat ine Côt au e-de s-N eig

Sain t-Ke vin

oie

athe r te-C

Côte

De K e ond o

Van Hor ne Vict

tain

ou

nt

Mou n

d Aldre

Ro

Lav

estb ury

arie

Lég aré

Bou rret

de W

Lem ieux

Déc

30

elle s

de la

Plam

che tte

ourt rai de C

Bo u

Car lton

hts

a

Si g

Véz in

in

Pa ré

d

e van Sa a l e

Je an -Ta lo n

Mo un ta

De c

n

y rwa No

-Sain

son

nt

Hud

ton

Lint on

Bed ford

de D arling

ine

Wild erto n

de la

eiges

-N e-des

Côt

Van H

orne

Prat

inime nce m prése e faible c n e e prés odéré nce m nte prése e importa rée nc dé prése n mo o te ti a ntr ortan conce ation imp illes ntr e m c fa n o c de u pas peu o

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

côteSAint-luc

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Dé

ca rie

Cl

ev e

Côte-Saint-Luc

W al l en be

rg

Ma

dis

h Bo

m

rde

n

on

alo

Ale ar

Me llin g

int- Sa

av en

de

Mc

rkh

la C ôt e

Gu elp h

Pa

Lu c

Kil

da re

Ma ckl e

Me rt

Sh

na ld

Ha rro w

r Lo uis -Pa ste u

Ca ve n

cD o

Blo sso m

Da

W av ell

Niveau de défavorisation

vie

s

We stm ins Wo ter lse le y We stlu ke

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

31

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

côte-SAint-PAul, SAint-Henri And ville-éMArd

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

se -d eLim a

e

nd -P ro ulx

Ro la

No tre -

Da me

Sa in t-A m

Sa

Sa in t

am du -D Co re t uv o en N t s ue Sai ntacq Fe t-J n i rdi a S na de S nd Co ain urc teell M n ar e cor gu A er ite

br oi se

intJac q

-A n to

ue

ine

Ro

s

Few or no family

Saint-Henri

Côte-Saint-Paul

Herte uesJacq

ey Hadle

Ham ilton

Maza

nd i gla Sprin

u

wm an

Jolicoeur

eur Jolico

a Hurte

Ne

De Bienco court co

as Dum

Ville-Émard

l

d Brian

rin

r ard Allla e Jogu s

Raud

ot

des Tri nitaire s

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

32

Le e Caron

Jacques-Hertel Angers

Denonville e

La aurende eau

c

Eadie

La

Hadley

l na Ca

de l'Église

e hin

Desma archais

Woodlan nd

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

dollArddeS-orMeAux And roxboro

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Go

on ins rk Pa

9e A

uin

venu e

Roxboro

v Sé de

ille

ke

ur t

in e Su Hy m an

rn

o ro yb

La ke

Be lco

nn Su

Garden

g ur

e br Fa

o sb ra St

ry er lab

ta

tu Sa

ick sw un r B

h se

D

a eS

vis nte Mo

rry

Spring

es rc

ou

ke La

mse h

e lab Sa e D

e ov rgr o N ton orn h T

n lto Hi

m cu

M

sS

Tecu

Te

er

ry in er op lab h a C S De

ke La

ille uv Ro

n ve Ha

M

y Bo

on ur H

ter ins

n

de

Ro

ilo r -P ge

Dollard-des-Ormeaux

e Blu

y

e inl cK

Garden

rry

r pl a Po

on Pil er-

W oo ds id k e a o e t i h W

lbe

k

g Ro

rh am

tm es W

w

st ne

l be an ira t-Je M in Sa

Du

vie air

Mu

ar

Er

ue

t

Spring

tp es

r mi ed Fr

F

eR 16

r lbe Co

nsh

-L

W

Fran ce

e elm Ans

ne avig

Sunn ybro oke

Dollard-des-Ormeaux et Roxboro

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

rd

t fo

on

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

33

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

dorvAl/ île-dorvAl

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

is ég -R int Sa

Dorval / Île-Dorval

Cô te -d eLi es s

e

is ég -R t n i Sa

de

la

on ch er v Re

ce

enue

field Park

Surrey

Cardinal

autoroute 20

n

Boyla

34

d

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

Gallan

as

Île-Dorval

harles Saint-C

des Lil

du Bord-du-Lac--Lakeshore

e-V

Carson Dorval

e Dawson

Bou cha rd

Georg

Lepag

Stream

Carso n

n Fenelo -Philip Prince

Herron Kingsley

crest Thorn h Beac Pine

ille

é Lagac

ng

Oakv

Starli

Herron

Torren

rk

ent Clém

re thmo Stra

La

v 55e A

ll be mp a C

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentation importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

HAMPSteAd And SnoWdon

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Dé ca rie

a ud Mic helBib

e

Vic tor ia

Bo n

le

rcl e

rc l

re sc en t

Ci rc

e

on

na ld

Cl an ran ald

wd

cD o

Ci

ee n- M ar y

Du pu is

et

Ci

la n d

Qu

et Fle

Aldred

Ma

F le

-Is

Snowdon

Hampstead Gra nvi ll

an s

Le mi eu x

Sn o

Tr

Ce da rC

rd

Netherwood

Co olb roo k

nn

Isa be lla

Ly

Bo urr et

Mc

or ia

a Pons

Fe rn cro ft

e Cl ev

Ma cD on ald

W es tbu ry

Éd ou La ard co -M mb on e tp

tede

de l

aC ô te

-S ain

Dé ca rie

Vi ct

eti t

Ca

the

r in e

Hampstead et Snowdon

av ist

Co olb roo Ea k rns cli ffe

Stratford He ath Pin ed ale

Gl

en

mo re

te co rth o N la de

Luc int-Sa e t Cô

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

35

a

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

HocHelAgAMAiSonneuve

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve

On ta

rio

Sic ard

uen Ro de

aga che l Ho

ain

Pré fo

nta

ine

e voi f er rée SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

36

Da

ine on ta La F

ine

rine

nte -C

erm

On tari

t-G

x

ath e

iett e

our neu

vid son Da rlin g

Sa i

Jol

u

Be nne tt

Let

éan s

ois

Via

Fo nta

bly

llier

Sai n

On tari o

Ro uen Val

Sic ard Air d

Pie -IX

o

Cu vi

Ch am

d'O rl

La

de

de

Ch arle ma gne Bo urb onn ière

Bél ive au

Sherbrooke

Pie

Ho ch

stade olympique

ferr ée

Sa inte -Ca the rine

voie

ela g

rre -De Co ub

a

erti n

V ia u

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

kirklAnd

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

an

iew

gy le

Ca nv in

Ar

illv

de

La ce y-G r ee n

k Kir

St

Me rid i

d lan

ox

n Pen

Niv

de

ion

isat

vor

a déf

e inim e m ble c n i e a se pré ence f odéré te n s pré ence m porta érée m d s pré ence i n mo rtante o o i s pré entrat n imp illes o c i con entrat de fam c s con ou pa peu

eau

Ta yw oo d

ne sc an ad i en Tr an

Elk

euf aun hâte C du

Br un sw ick

ue Mo nta g

as

d-L an iel Ro llan

nd kla Ki r

et

d

un Br

de

r y-F Ter

Ki rk lan

e-

Ho u

us Hym

us ym

dr An

He nr i -D ao us t

H

ton Ea

Sa int -C ha rle s

M na Do ac

e ag rit He

ld SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

37

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

lAcHine

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Lachine

Ave

.

ute 20

Saint-Antoine

12e Ave.

15e Ave.

Piché

6e Ave.

19e Ave.

tor o

5e Ave.

38

Provost

8e Avenue

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

Victoria

14e Ave.

sep h

Saint-Antoine

Sherbrooke

17e Ave.

Sa intJo

32e Avenue

Broadway

36e Ave.

ph

44e Ave.

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

46e Ave.

veau de défavorisation

os e

Provost

24e Ave.

Vict oria

Sherbrooke

au

Duff Court

Esther-Blondin

Sherbrooke

Sa in t-J

Gameroff

37e Avenue 39e Ave.

ve. 55e A

Louis-Basile-Pigeon

1re

autoroute 20

Sir-George-Simpson

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

lASAlle

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

LaSalle Niveau de défavorisation

Édoua

rd

nue Bishop-P ower

ale

Robe rt

re Lefeb v

LaSall e

e rg eo

9e Av e

Centr

Re né e Dor a

G

l'a

11e Ave.

a

La

e ld na ca

Alepin 2e Av e.

Ga gn

é

tra Cen

le

.

ale

De

ye dr en r Vé

au de ur duc o B que

4e Av enue

Th elm

rd ne r Co ult

M ah

Salley

68e Ave.

Cen tr

80e Ave nu

le

Je

dy

e

Orch a rd

er

Cur e- L ega

Lafle ur

ar d

n lo

Séné cal

Ave

tr a

John-F .-Kenn e

Bé lec

s

rre Hébe rt

Ra

Ce n

Thierr y

ril -B an

Duc a

Lapie

Shevchenko

Do ll

s

r re

43 e

alle

Airli e Bay ne

pie

ku

lin d me on Ga ym

LaS

La

no ît

Trud

r Lafle u

Wank lyn

Airlie

Lis e

an wm Ne

ilot

90e Ave nue

Riverview

Athole

el

hn -C

Ha am rrig pb an e ll

eau

d

Grav

Jea n-M

Jeannette

Airlie

Be

r lla

route 138

Do

Vézina

an wm e N Lé ge r

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

Ch ou i nar Je d an -C Jean he -B rillon va lie r Jean -Chev alier Lecle rc

Jo

Se n

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

39

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

l’île-bizArd And SAintegeneviève

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

L'Île-Bizard et Sainte-Geneviève

u -d rd Bo

a -L

c

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

t re éo Th

de

Bo rd -d uL

ac

se gli l'É

i -B es

Ch

t on

u cq Ja

L'Île-Bizard

m re èv

r za d

on ils W

Sainte-Geneviève r Che

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

40

rier

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Mercier-eSt

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

Vé re nd ry e

Few or no family

Mercier-Est

Geor ge

s

Mo Tét re

aul

rtin Pier re-D e Co ube

lair e

présen présen présen présen conce conce peu ou

nat

Sab atie r

elle s

hur -B

uie s

hela ga

t-D o

Art

Cou

Sai nte -C

Pie rreDe

Niveau d Sai n

Hoc

Lié

ber t

ont aine La F

On t ario

de Bru x

Orm Mou sse eau au x

r

ille

iva ge

Lap oin te

Tel lie

uche rv

de Ma rse il

le Ga lib

de B o

des

me e-Da Notr

ert

de Bea ur

au

t

ille rs e Ma

Me rcie r

uss e

Tail lon

Sou lign y

rre-

de

She

rbro oke

Gro sbo i de Lap oin te

Pie

Pau l-Pa u

Pie rreBer nar d

Bellerive

Tec k

ea ux

Aub ry

lon

Sai nte -Cla ire

Tail

ber tin

rd

de

de sO rm

Fletc h er

in-J

erna

de For b

P i er re-B

u

Jacq ues -Por lier ans

Pau l-Pa

on

itaill e Rob

De

La

s-V

de B

de

eau riva ge

Sai nt-J ust

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

41

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Mercier-oueSt

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

Pie rreC

Louis -

son

rk

eill e Ma rs

Lac

ord aire

Ass

om ptio

he l aga y

adi lla

c

Du

Qu esn

n

Notre

de l'

de C

e

ré

-Dam

nsa b

Bases des Forces canadiennes lign

auv eau

Ch

Mo

sau tels

Hoc

Jum onv de

Lou is-V eui llot

De

Ha ig

Pé pin ière

Co ube rtin

de la

elie r

L ya ll

de

ues ne

Lan g

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

cle

Arc and

Pie rreDe

Du Q

Be au

lt

ille

Bo ssu et

Mig nau

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

42

e

No tre -D am e

Ro

epe ntig du ny Lan gue doc

Mercier-Ouest

H.-L a Fo ntain e

Sou

sem o nt

Ra dis

She rbro oke

Pie rreM

de R

rd

r

ivin

Ch oui na

gelie

agn an

La n

aub ien

Fra nço is-B o

Be

Bél ang er

orn

eille

Few or no family

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

MontréAl-eSt

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Montréal-Est a Ma rie n

Not re-D am e

Sh e r brook

e

nr He

s as ur o i-B

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

Geor ge

s-V

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

43

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

MontréAl-nord

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

G

ou in

Few or no family

n lla d

er Lég er Lég

Go uin

ss a ou ra nri -B He

li Jo

in Gou

ur Pr ie

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

44

r lie

rt be Hé

nt-

g ur bo Co

Mo

e ng La

n ro

ri s

ois ev br a S

r noi Re

t

c Ga

Pa

u

ry

ry

de

Fle

u Fle

de

Au do in

st re Fo

ha eC

sti

nd lla Ro

l za Ba

IX ePi

s et oll éc sR de n o nd

a az Pl l ita le -V vil in t lle rg Sa Be ou de ob s C ne de de

l

m d'A

os

Ca

on m

r tie ll e Pe

Lo

nti re au

r ieu Pr

an us La in do Au int -M ich e

de

r in cto

e

mo d 'A

s

i ro rle

x ou

d

on

c lza Ba

de

sL de

t e le ns o M

m

er Cl

d'A

i -V rie Ma

ér

x

on

ge Pi

de

y Ba

et F is

-H er

u re

n

sis

s rite

Om

u mo

He

d a ass u o r ri-B

ne

les

e-

l

u rg Ma s e

e

La

de

au M es lip

te let Co e-

s er

on ge

s

u sT

e ric

up -D

id Ov

int Sa

lk Sa

i uln sa Dé

Pi

rra Pe

er vri he

e air rd co La

-C ur rth

de

ar aG

Ro

Lé ge r

rt be

e air rd co La A

Sa

d d ran ran art art Ch Ch

Ro

Montréal-Nord

ll e

s ien

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

MontréAloueSt And SAint-Pierre

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Bro ck

la

Cô

Pa rks i de

te -S ain

t-L

uc

W

es

to

ve

r

Montréal-Ouest et Saint-Pierre

ath ea rn

Ne lso n

de

Str

Be

es t

sor

Milton

om inv

étr in

ileP

Lé o-P

Wi nd

ou lin

rab l es

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

du M

Montréal-Ouest

sto n

Ém

de sÉ

Desrosiers

Niveau de défavorisation

ok

Hil lcr

Saint-Pierre

n r hto lne ug Mi o Br

Avo n

Ea

db ro

or au t

e2 o ut

0

Elm

ille

du C

Jo

lico

eu r

S

ha let

es qu ac -J t ain

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

45

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Mont-royAl

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

de l'Ac adi e

Dre sde n

klan

d

Loc kha rt

rsle y

Gle

crief f

Ge n

ev a

n Mon

nco e

Kin de ega

ern e

Ma

rlbo ro

von De re Cla intSa Luc

Du nv

rsle y

t

Roc

Cly de

Dun kirk

Kin de

Sun se

ne

Str at

Ath lo

h co

Can ora

na

Tre

nto

n

Brit ta

ny

Mont-Royal

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

46

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

notre-dAMede-grâce

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

ce

So me rled

c

rbr oo Co ke ffe e

Sh e

la Cô te

Gr

Pru d'h

om

me

Ca

ntc

Ro w

We st

ve nd

lair

an

d

Ma dis on

de

e uv ne n o a is M

Ma rci

Gi r

l in e

ke

pe rL ac h

Ha mp ton

oo

Up

No tre -D am e-d e-G râc e

nk l an Mo Hil l

S

r rb he

Re ge nt

C la ey

r em on

t

Dé ca rie

d

rie

de

So me rle d nd kl a

ing

Pa rk

We st B

-Ja in t Sa

Gr

on de M

Ma riet te

E lm hur st

We st

Mo

Fie ld

Connaught

Ma cM aho n

n

nn e

h

iso

Te rre bo

Be ssb oro ug

Ma d

de

Fielding

H in gs to n

Pri nce -of Mo -W n ale Kin tcla s g -E ir dw a rd Wa lkle Ma y Mo riet ntc te lair

Be lmo re

ton

de

de C

hes ter

Ha mp

Dé ca

-S ain t

-A nto

ine

Notre-Dame-de-Grâ

ou ar d

Ha rva rd S

s ue cq a t-J ain

ish

tion

Niveau de défavorisa

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée nte concentration importa peu ou pas de familles

roa dw ay s e qu

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

47

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

outreMont

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Outremont

dy

Éd

ou a

rd-

Mo n

tpe

tit

Vin Gl en ce co nte d'I n

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

48

rine athe te-C in a -S Côte

l oya nt-R o M

r oc

he

r -C ha rle s

t-V i at eu de la

Du

Éd ou ard

La joi e

r

nd

n

fie ld

Sa in

ck la

Pr att

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

Blo om

St ua rt

n

iso

Qu erb es

e

Ro

Niveau de défavorisation

Hu tch

Fa irm ou nt

'Ép ée

Be rna rd

s te

Mc Ea ch ra

d'O utr em on t

La joi

Ba

Du ch arm e

Va n

Ho rne

de l

Mc

Nid e

r

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

PArc-extenSion

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

po li t ai ne

Few or no family

c-E

Li èg e

d' An ve rs

Bl C oo ha m m fie pa ld gn eu r

W di e

ise m

an

an Je ne an -M

lv y

l 'A ca

e

ce

O gi

de

l'É pé

t-R oc h

de

défa pré vori se sati pré nce m on sen ce f inime pré aible sen ce m pré se o con nce im dérée c con entratio portan t cen tra n mo e peu ou p tion im dérée as d p e fa ortante mille s

de

Sa in

St ua rt

Ba ll

ry

eau

on

Q ue rb es

Ja r

Niv

nsi

de

Bi rn am

xte

Je an -T al on

M

ét ro

Par

Du ro ch er

t on um a Be

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

49

Petitebourgogne And Pointe-SAintcHArleS

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Petite-Bourgogne et Pointe-Saint-Charles

d

Sa i nt -Ja

Bridge

t ne

r re ea

Vi Ch

r ate Atw

D

le ar présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

Favard

Dé ca

ng ton We lli

Co

le r

ain

e de Ro

ze d l e

Col

Ch ar lev oix

de

Niveau de défavorisation

rie

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

50

Charon

Ash

era

ine

Bourgeoys

a rni be

Sa in t-P

re nt Ce

i d'H

at ric k

ix vo du

de Sébastopol de la Congrégation

Fortune

Pointe-Saint-Charles ave ntur e

le

Bon

nin g e m a -D tre o N y na er v u

Sh

lis De

Ca n

er

Le Ber

s ue cq a J

Petite-Bourgogne

Wellington

-V an i

Tr un k

tin Sa

mo n

Gr an d

Co ur so l

G eo rg es

Gu y

cq

ue s

Ri ch

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Petite-PAtrie

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Lo u is -H éb ert

int -

La

ur e nt

ue

in

Sa int -Zo tiq

Je an -T alo n

t- U r ba

Sa

Hu

Wa ve rly

Ca sg rai n

Ga rni

ha lle c

de

La n

se r

Ch

ate a

on t ub ria nd

s de

au

d iè

Ho lt

ea ux

re

in eJu l

De

se mo nt

Be

or ma nv ille

Ro se m

de Sa int -V all ie

de Bo rd

e

arrière s

de N

rt

He nri -Ju lie n de Ga sp é

et t

des C

ch e

ab ot

ie n

Ro

erv ille

Bo ye r

es èr rri a C

Pa ul

la

ec ha s

ub e

Ch

Ch am bo rd

el l

-H

ier

Ma r qu

er

n i nt

t

ine au

de B

Sa

Sa int -D en is

Sa in

de

ab o

D'I b

Da nd ur an d

oti qu e

e-C olo mb

ub ria nd

re

b ie

Dr ole t

na ud iè

Pa p

re

au

De Ch ate a

Fa b

int -Z

Ch ris top h

La

Sa

Bé lan ge

r

de

Ch

Lo rim

Be

Je an -T alo n

de

Éc ore s

ss e

de s

Ér ab les

Ro

de s

de

Petite-Patrie

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

tch iso n

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

51

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

PierreFondS

Weak presence Moderate presence

(SoutHWeSt PArt)

Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

de

Few or no family

on dis Ma

Wil low

ne - An inte

on ds rre f Pie de

Elg in

g

rd iza s-B que Jac s

Sa

as Atl

ak O

o wo

d

e et t

che

Cé cile

Vivie r

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

52

e in nt le a V

o Né

ier

is pu Du

s

ou Cay

x

lo Me

ch tte Fré he u is Lo éc Fr he

in

d on

loc Me

re f

eu ag sC de

ou

d

ier eP

re

ella a-B Riv

s nd efo err -Pi au â te Ch

de

du

rd Ha

t er

in

Acr es

s arle Ch intSa

s ui Lo

n Na x eu ag sC de

u Go

r be m Ki

tte elle Ou

Sa

Gille

ix ro -C

s Tes

Sa

te in

s Jame

s Yve int-

Kin

Pierrefonds (partie sud-ouest)

ham Gra

lle be La

to An

on uc -Fa e in

rris Ha

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

PierreFondS

Weak presence Moderate presence

(nortHeASt PArt)

Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

Lala

on

s

ds

Pa rk

d

ins on

de

Pi e

ss Ro

ime min nce faible rée e s pré ence modé ante e s rt pré ence impo odéré te n s pré ence tion m porta s s pré centra tion im mille fa con centra s de a con ou p peu

eau

Niv

n

atio

oris

av déf

de

Ri

ch mo nd

-J ea n

Ma dis on Ha rris

Sa int

de Pierrefonds

ur ce

Cé

hen

Sain te-S uzan ne Alex ande Loga r n Bass wood s rè

Ar ag

Gouin

de Da vid

Dr es de n

Be dfo r

Go uin Pie rre f on ds

B ivela R

Fo x

So

rre fon

her Ric La ng ev in

e

Ve rs nk ail les Mo

e oisé

de

de s

Ra ic h

B

er

n

Ri ch

Perro

H l t u nt er au e r

de

Perro

n

rdale Rive

nde

Desla urier s Gouin

Belvédère

Meig

in ou G Hort Olympia ie

Hy ma n

d

r Pie

o

n e i t r

pa ( s

on f e r

t)

s e rd

Few or no family

bell e

Gr ah am

m Ja

es

Ki ng

J G acq ille u s SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

53

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

PlAteAu Mont-royAl

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

lfo

ur ie

ud

B la rébe Ro u ch f e

An n rie -

Parc Lafontaine

e

La

Se

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

Pa rcLa

va

l

we

ll

fon

tai

ne

ub Sain ert t-A nd ré Be

Sa int -La ure nt

de sP ins

Pa rc

ch el

du Mo nt-

ial

Du lut h

in

du

Sa int -H

Ra

-U rba

en is

Pa rth

rim ie r

Ca r ti e r

Ma Ro ya l

ph Sa i nt -Jo

int

Co lon

du

54

Fa bre

e

e

ièr

Pa pin ea u

de Me nta na

Sa int -D

ille

Gi

na

Lo

rri

Ch er rie r

La

de

Ra ch el

de

mb

de

Bo ye r

se

e

Sa

e

arc

ad e

Fa irm

du P

Cl ark

he -C olo

erv

Me ss ier

Ch ab ot

de

Vil len eu v

l 'E sp lan

gu ir

de

n

ou nt

ce

Ca sg rai Ma

iat eu r

an

nt

Sa int -V

e-M

re

rna

an n

i nt -L au

Be

Je

rd

Sa

-H ub ert

e

La uri er

Sa int

ue tt

Gi lfo rd

Ch ris top

La

Ma rq

D'I b

rd

r

Sa in

t-J os e

ph

Few or no family

en ais

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

Pointe-AuxtreMbleS

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence

(SoutH PArt)

Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration

52e A

Pointe-aux-Trembles (partie sud)

ve.

Rous se

5 3e A v e.

50e A ve. de La Rous 48e A selière ve. 47e A ve.

lière

46e A ve.

For syth

Princ

e-Arth ur

de La

Mont For

Few or no family

Bo ur as s

a

4 2e A v e.

ntign

y

ame Notre-D

H

en ri-

39e A ve.

De M o

36e A ve.

Fors yth

32e A

Forsy th

Versa illes

ue sq ve é L d - e Norm né andie Re

Reev e

s

-Cath eri Sainte

De M ontign y

ne

Sher br

16e A

ve.

SaintJean -Bapti ste

me

Not re-D a

. 3e Av e.

e.

e-A lbe rt

4e Av e

8e Av

Pr inc

-Cath Sainte

René -L

e.

erine

5e Av

éves

qu e

8e Av e.

de la Gauc hetiè re

Forsy th

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

aire Victoria

rc

me Da treNo

ny

Niveau de défavorisation

13e A ve.

Osca r-Be noît

du Tri cente n

ve.

Victoria

es-V erme tte

d u Pa

ooke

30e A ntig Mo De

Geor g

ve.

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

55

LeveL of UnderpriviLege

Pointe-AuxtreMbleS

Minimal presence Weak presence Moderate presence

(nortH PArt)

Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Pointe-aux-Trembles (partie nord)

100e

S

o ro rb he

Ave.

ke

Victo ria ine -C ha ud illo n

gé Eu

ie ss Te e ni

An to

83e

Beau so

r

Ave.

leil

52e A ve.

e-Arth ur

de La

Rous se

lière 47

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

56

ult riba -Fa l e rc Ma 59e Ave.

Montm artre Forsy th

Sherb ro

oke

Niveau de défavorisation

5 3e A v e. 50e A ve. de La Rous 48e A seliè ve

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

Pointe-clAire

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Pointe-Claire ma Del

eo

r

eeze

ni Donega

autoroute 20

s ource des S

ni ega Don

ard -Edw

r Coolb

ale

nt l mo Be

od

gd Sprin

d ne Pon

is dale Park

u Lo

o lew

od

e Wav

rley

w

w vie ke La

20

ie Bayv

e rout auto

tain

d Sad

nd ha s-S a l g

o Fairw

Niveau de défavorisation

S

ok ro

Jean

u Do

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

tSain

ra ro Au

eld efi dg e S

le y h it W

y ior ign Se

an rkl Pa

e Princ

b ae Br

p

t

iffe tcl es W

n ce es Cr

hro

ia rg

m Hy

r

G de

W int

us

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

57

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence

rivière-deSPrAirieS

Weak presence Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

intSa Jea

Rivière-des-Prairies

is apt n-B

La ière onn ss ple

t pu ha d-C an Ar m

te

liss Ga

. Ave

u e-D uric Ma

au

sis

is

eèr r s-P de ie air s

He

inr

Bo

ur

sa as

en

r de

Pa sc al

Bl ai se -

.

ton ne an -P pe i li p Ph

e Av

r sie es -T lle mi

. ve

Ca

eA 28

t-A

M au ric Fr ean Du ço pl ises Bl s is an Ni ch co ar la sd Le bl an c

l rre Ca is-

et rg Fo elph do Ro

on ge lar

ex Al

e. Av

o Rh elph o Ad

A 6e . ve SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

58

ue

e. Av

s es -D

R 5e

ivi aR

re

ail -B re er Pi

e 28

ém Cl r ie rd ba

d ar

e èr

l be

. eg ur

om -B nd ma Ar

a Be i eÉl

4e

s rra Pe

p Am édr An

No

e Av

e. Av

e

df re Al

e 26

24

s rra Pe

iè m Lu is u Lo

uis Lo

s lle au

e

e 63

uin Go

Ru

l de

4e

. ve

. ve eA

eA 54

51

P

as err

aré t-P ma Pri

70e

e Ru

3e

M

s le up -D e ric

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

roSeMont

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

35e

r che Du ro

ss e ha

de

Niveau de défavorisation

ich el

bl a y Rac hel

Tre m

S ai nt - M

ont -R o ya l

h

Ave .

m-

7e Ave .

-Jo sep

Lau rier

on Ave .

A ve . Ave 2e A ve. .

18e

Jol

Cu

Wi llia

1re

Ave .

Ra c hel

Ave . 3e

Ro se mo nt

ss e Be lle ch a

d

4e

15e

Ave .

9e

A ve .

Ch Bo arle urb ma onn gne ière

Ave .

du M

n

Jea nne -d'A PieIX rc

ran

12e

Parc Maisonneuve

.

Sa int

lso

Ave

Mas s

Ave .

ve.

u

Ave .

ndu

13e A

Ave . 17e

Ch âte lain

Ave .

23e

.

18e

6e

Mo

26e

de Be lle ch as s

Ave

Ro se

9e

Av e .

e

20e

V ia

.

28e

P ie -IX

.

mo nt

Be au bie n

nt-M ich el

Ave

aire

Sherbrooke

Sai

25e

Av e .

Da

Ave

Sa int -Z oti qu e

21e

Ave .

.

Be au bie n

30e

Ave

La c ord

de Be lle c

Sa int -Zo tiq

39e

24e

n

ue

Pa isl ey

Rosemont

As som ptio

Ma rie

de l'

Po nto ise

-Ro se -

de

Dé

zér

iett e

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

villi er

y

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

59

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

SAint-lAurent

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Deguire

Cou

te -V er tu

la

de

iers

Héb

ert

Dé ca rie

t

t-L in

60

eCr oi x er m ai n

Sa in t-A ub in

Sc ot

Sa ish nd

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

No ël

ve

e ed -Fr Dr.

N an te l

Ca St ps ewa hili rt P k ri

t-G

Co llè ge -N ih on

ou

Be rtr an d

in

du

Cô te -V er tu la de

y

Al ex is

Sa

Sa in t

Bu ch an an

au ri n

is

en cie

nTh

im

M ar ce l-L

Lu

no en s M od ug

Th im

Po iri er

Du gu a

ier

Hou de

s

n

Mo ntp ell

Hod ge

G re ne t

Cô

Sa int Dé -G ca er r ie m ain

ev ie r

de

Cr

th

l 'É gl is e

sa as ur o B

Pa tri cia

vre tte

Montpe llier

El iza be

eau

De sla ur

sa c

n

ce l M ar

tri

er et

inr He

To up i

nev ille

De gu ire

K

r elle

Le b

Qu en

Ro ch o

rd

ou ille t

Po iri

Sa va

La va l

Je an -B

So m er s

Cl

ér ou x

Du

ssa

Mé trop o lit a in e

Henri-Boura

R oc ho n

Saint-Laurent

Transcanadienne

Au th i

er

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

SAint-léonArd

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

P. -E .-L am arc he

M illy

eli er

bre

Br un

es

d'A ba nc ou rt

Bu re

Ba

un

ard

alo

n

Ba ud ela ire

de Pontoise

rie Lab

Do llie r

l

uis -Q uil ico Te rbo is Mi lle t

Va ldo mb re de Va nn

Nicolas-Gaudais

aire o rd Lac

Lo

Jea n-T alo n de La La ch en Da aie uv er siè re

om

re

Va ld

eti è rry

Ja

ng

in po l i ta Mé tro

Ja rry

Ro be rt

Lé vra rd Ar thu r-P e lo qu d Bea r in uv va i oir R n a e na n

es

Va lé ry

d

ts ale G s e

ag

J

en au d

er t

Bo ur d

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

Aim é-R

nty Re

de

La

Bé lan ge r d'A vila

rta g

e l ag De

Niveau de défavorisation

er Bo

nd

Th év en in

s ie r

e Co utu r

ran des -Pr airi es des G

Lav oi

D'A

u

il

b Ro

Pr ov en ch er

'Ea

n e èr mes ini tb Du Lo

ot L'A igl on

p-d

de

i ne

de

ers

Ma lou in

unis de l'A

d'U kra

Pr im

l ane

Via u ev

Ch am

Du na nt

Alb

Sa lva ye

de N

du

an -T

n

da ire

Pé he rin tte au lt

r

Je

ulo

Ro c

ng eli e

de

To

o

La

elm on t

e

Gi ffa rd

de

La co r

rad

de B

ur ut

Le N orm a

le P

Ga uv re au

de sG ra nd es -P ra irie s

Co

mb ard i

Saint-Léonard

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

61

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

SAint-MicHel

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Saint-Michel ve .

Av e.

e.

24 eA ve . 22 eA

t-M ich

ibo

ém az ie

rd

el

13 e

L.O. -D av id

ler a

y

Av e.

Ev e re

tt Je an -Ta lon

D'I be rvi Lo lle uis -H éb ert de de sÉ sÉ co rab r es les alo n-T Je a

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

62

17 eA ve . 13 eA

n

M

ine lita po o r ét

Av e.

Vil

ea u

9e

-D av id

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

pin

19 e

Av e.

L.O.

Niveau de défavorisation

Til lem on t

Pa

Pi e -IX

Vil ler ay

-G u

ve .

Cr

ph

Cré ma zi

Sa in

se

Ja rry

Ém

ile -

Jo

e

Jo urn

au lt

14 e

Av

Ch

ab

ot

6e Av e.

r Bé lan ge r

12 eA ve .

Pie -IX

ve .

Bé lai

e.

25 e

Je an -R iva rd

De nis -P

eR 39

oré

Av

ou va in

de L

Ch

am

pd

15 e

ap in

ve . 24 eA

ue

25 eA

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

verdun

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

s-S oe u

rs

bro oke

l'Île -de

Ru sh

Regina

Laf

de

Strathmore

el

de

Caisse

lle

Gertrude

Verdun

am Duh a LaS

riHen

leu

r

n Re

du Golf

é-

v Lé

es

qu

e

Hickson alle LaS

M ar in lubdu C

LaSalle

oz

r ga El

Wellington

Bannantyne

rli Be

pé as G

Argyle

Manning

t

5e Avenue

Desmarchais

Egan

rê Fo la de

s

2e Avenue

Marguerite-Bourgeoys

r eu So sde el'Îl

Gordon

F o nt aine

de

Melrose

Galt

de la

de

Willibrord

de Verdun

de l'Église

Woodland

Osborne Moffat

Beurl ing

Brault

Valiq u

Hôpital Douglas

Churc

hill

Lecla ir

ette

Riverv ie

w

île des sŒurs

Niveau de défavorisation présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

63

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

ville-MArie

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Ville-Marie Sa int

t-U rba in

St an la M

ve

tiè r

e

ue

ch e

ve sq

Gu y at h

ieu

Vi lle

-M ar ie

Fo rt

de l

aM on tag ne

Roy er Le

ne An toi

Sa int -

am e

ay

Re né -L év es qu e

St -M

Ga u

-Lé

la

ne

rin e

he

ne u

-C at

on

tag

Ma ck

te

Sa in

M ais

de

on

Mc Gil l

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

64

nn e- M an Bl ce eu ry

ley

r te wa At

minime aible modérée mportante on modérée on importante de familles

du

Tu pp er

favorisation

Ch om be ed r tey Cl os se

ty

Pe el

n

de la Côte-des-Neiges

La m

Je a

de

treD

Do cte ur Pe Su nfi mm el d erh ill

Sim ps o

du

Ce d

de

rsi

No

de sP ins

Pe el

ce an

ar

br em m Re

ive

Hu tch iso er n

Sh er br oo ke

Un

ch

Pa rc

de

mi lle

de

Du ro

er

t eFa

eri ne

du

Pr Ay lm

Sa in

-La ure nt

Sa int e- C ath

inc e-A

rth ur

Sa in

Re né

Pa rc

Sa in t-A Sa nt int oi -Ja ne cq ue s

du

Mont-Royal

Bo

ns ec

ou rs

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

villerAy

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

od ure

nt

De

Ch

ré

an d

Je an -T alo n

t- A nd

ate au bri

Ber ri

Ev ere tt

Ev ere tt

Sa in

Bo ye r

t

Hen ri-J ulie n

nad e

Parc Jarry

alo n

Niveau de défavorisation

Je an -T

l'Es pl a

Fai llon

de

Dro le

Ville ray

t-La

de L

iège

Cla rk

Cas gra in

nis

Go un

Sai n

nt-D e

br e

u

Jar ry

Mé

Sai

nt-G éra rd

Fa

Ca st e lna

Gu izot

Li è ge de

e

e

de la Ro ch e

intHu be rt

Sai

trop o

lita in

Fou che r

Ro us se lot

de

Go un od

tral M is

Lem

Sa

er

ray

Ch ris top he -C olo mb

t

Laje une ss

de La na ud ièr e

rry Ja

er

an

Sai nt-H ube r

Pa pin ea u

Ga rni

rd

de P ontb riand

ge Liè e d Boy

Ma rqu ett e

Vil le

Villeray

Ch am bo

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, cHild ASSiStAnce ProgrAM; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl HouSeHold Survey.

65

LeveL of UnderpriviLege Minimal presence Weak presence

WeStMount

Moderate presence Strong presence Moderate concentration High concentration Few or no family

Sh er br oo ke

K it ch Ke

ns ing

nn ais o

SourceS: régie deS renteS du Québec, child ASSiStAnce ProgrAm; StAtiSticS cAnAdA, 2011 cenSuS And 2011 nAtionAl houSehold Survey.

66

G le n

r

Me tca lfe

Ca th e int e-

ia

M

présence minime présence faible présence modérée présence importante concentration modérée concentration importante peu ou pas de familles

t or

de

Niveau de défavorisation

eu ve

Vi c

Sa

La ns do wn e

en e

ton

rin e

Me lvi lle

e Ol ivi

M ais

k roo

er

de

e rb Sh

on ne uv e

Westmount

Cl a rk e

Gr ee ne

3

Methodology

67

Chapter 3

Methodology the methods and techniques used to produce this map were derived from a population-based approach, not from an individual approach. the values were calculated for family groups constituted on the basis of their geographic proximity and considering certain socio-economic characteristics. the two major components of the poverty map are the base map and the overall underprivilege index. these two components have been updated in accordance with the evolution of the geo-social characteristics of various parts of the Island of Montréal and the Vaudreuil-Soulanges RCM. this chapter is devoted to the methods and techniques used to update the poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal.

3.1 Configuration of the Base Map

two variables were used to characterize the dissemination areas in terms of the socioeconomic status of families with children under the age of 18:

the base map shows the division of the Island of Montréal and the Vaudreuil-Soulanges RCM into zones. this division aims to spotlight the geographic disparities in terms of socio-economic underprivilege. As a result, the zones must be as homogenous as possible.

• the median net annual income of eligible families under the Child Assistance Program;

dissemination areas are the smallest geographic units for which Statistics Canada publishes data useful for updating the poverty map. In principle, the smaller the territory, the more likely that it will be homogenous. however, socio-economic homogeneity is not a criterion used by Statistics Canada when setting boundaries.

these two variables were combined on an equal share in order to end up with a unique measuring unit; i.e., “family income”. the new variable thereby created is also used in the calculation of the overall underprivilege index.

In addition, the number of families with children under the age of 18 per dissemination area is generally too small to generate reliable statistics. In fact, data from the National household Survey come from a sample of households, and the data provided by Statistics Canada are rounded to a multiple of 5. It was therefore necessary to combine dissemination areas so that the number of families per geographic unit would be sufficiently high to ensure greater statistical reliability. the base map was created by combining dissemination areas presenting similar socioeconomic characteristics. the statistics used were taken from the Régie des rentes du Québec, under the Child Assistance Program.

68

• the percentage of families receiving the maximum amount under the Child Assistance Program.

For the Island of Montréal, the following criteria were used to combine the dissemination areas into zones: • the areas had to be in the same socio-economic category; • the areas had to be located in the same sector (neighbourhood, municipality); • the total number of families in each zone had to be about 450. this configuration method made it possible to combine dissemination areas that were not adjacent. the vast majority of zones are thus not closed, but fragmented, spaces. this configuration method reflects the growing social mix observed in many neighbourhoods on the Island of Montréal. one effect of this social mix is that it was difficult to find a sufficiently large

number of adjacent dissemination areas with the same socio-economic profile. Moreover, it turns out that the neighbourhood is a sufficiently homogenous territory to serve as a geographic boundary for groupings of dissemination areas that are not adjacent. A one-way analysis of variance reveals that the average values per zone vary significantly from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in terms of both socio-economic variables and those linked to academic success. the following table lists neighbourhoods within which it was possible to combine nonadjacent dissemination areas.

table 8 list of neighbourhoods on the island of Montréal neighbourhoods

neighbourhoods (cont’d)

Ahuntsic Anjou Baie-d'Urfé Beaconsfield Cartierville Centre-Sud Côte-des-Neiges Côte-Saint-luc Côte-Saint-Paul dollard-des-ormeaux dorval / Île-dorval hampstead hochelaga-Maisonneuve Kirkland lachine laSalle l'Île-Bizard Mercier-est Mercier-ouest Montréal-est Montréal-Nord Montréal-ouest Mont-Royal Notre-dame-de-grâce outremont

Parc-extension Petite-Bourgogne Petite-Patrie Pierrefonds Plateau Mont-Royal Pointe-aux-trembles Pointe-Claire Pointe-Saint-Charles Rivière-des-Prairies Rosemont Roxboro Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Sainte-geneviève Saint-henri Saint-laurent Saint-léonard Saint-Michel Saint-Pierre Senneville Snowdon Verdun (including Île-des-Sœurs)

Ville-Émard Ville-Marie Villeray Westmount

Source: List adapted from a map distributed by the Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal (2002).

69

As regards the zones that divide the VaudreuilSoulanges RCM, their geographic boundaries match those of municipalities and one zone may include an entire municipality when dealing with a rural municipality with few inhabitants (in one case, two municipalities are included).

table 9 list of Municipalities in the Vaudreuil-soulanges rCM Municipalities Coteau-du-lac hudson les Cèdres les Coteaux l'Île-Cadieux (annexed to Vaudreuil-sur-le-lac) l'Île-Perrot Notre-dame-de-l'Île-Perrot

table 10 distribution of Zones according to the number of families listed in 2011 number of families

Zones number

%

less than 200

18

3.7

200-349

54

11.2

350-549

334

69.4

550 or more

75

15.6

total

481

100.0

Average number of families per zone: 459

Pincourt Pointe-des-Cascades Pointe-Fortune Rigaud Rivière-Beaudette Saint-Clet Sainte-Justine-de-Newton Sainte-Marthe Saint-lazare Saint-Polycarpe Saint-télesphore Saint-Zotique terrasse-Vaudreuil très-Saint-Rédempteur Vaudreuil-dorion Vaudreuil-sur-le-lac

results of the Configuration of the Base Map In some cases, the number of families per zone was either much higher or much lower than the 450 prescribed because it was necessary both to avoid combining dissemination areas with different levels of underprivilege and to avoid creating too many zones.

70

3.2 ChoiCe and Weighting of VariaBles used to CalCulate the oVerall underpriVilege index the variables selected are similar in nature to those which have been used for the previous map, and weighting under the index is identical. however, the source of the data pertaining to three of the four variables used for the current map and the previous map is different in 2011. Consequently, the variables that have to do with revenue, schooling, and activity on the labour market are no longer collected from the Canadian Census, but rather from the National household Survey. the quality and availability of the data collected from this survey are being challenged, mainly for small geographic units such as dissemination areas. the source of data and the specifications of the “family income” variable are different from those used for the previous map. the Régie des rentes du Québec is in a position to provide accurate data on a small scale with respect to the income of families with children under the age of 18. Moreover, these data were not taken from a sample and are updated annually.

table 11 list of Variables and indicators selected Variables

indicators

Family income

Combination, on an equal share, of the: • median net annual family income • % of families receiving the maximum amount under the Child Assistance Program

Mother’s education

Combination, on an equal share, of the: • % of families with a mother without a high school diploma • % of families with a mother without a post-secondary diploma

Female lone-parent

% of single-parent families headed by a female

Parents’ activity

% of families where neither parent works full time

For the Island of Montréal, eligible families under the Régie des rentes du Québec Child Assistance Program represent approximately 95% of families with children under the age of 18 listed by Statistics Canada in 2011.

table 11 provides a list of variables used in the overall underprivilege index. the “family income” and “mother’s education” variables are not expressed in percentage; they are summary measures, as are indexes.

the “family income” variable combines two indicators on an equal share: the median net annual income and the percentage of families receiving the maximum amount under the Child Assistance Program. the value used for the family income per zone corresponds to the average, weighted by the number of families, of the values obtained by the dissemination areas that make up the zone.

the results from the principal component factor analysis (from the correlation matrix) indicate that the variables selected fall under one single component that can be described as socioeconomic. this single component alone is the reason for 80.2% of the total variance. on the other hand, the index resulting from the KaiserMeyer-olkin measure of sampling adequacy amounts to 0.821, which is very good. this means that there are high-quality correlations among the variables and that all the variables selected form a coherent group; hence, allowing an adequate measure of concept.

As is the case with the “family income” variable, the source of data and the specifications of the “mother’s education” variable are different from those used for the previous map. this variable combines, on an equal share, the percentage of families with a mother without a high school diploma and the percentage of families with a mother without a post-secondary diploma. In 2006, the percentage of mothers without a high school diploma on the Island of Montréal was around 13%, which meant that 77 of the 470 zones from the previous map included no families with a mother who did not have a high school diploma. A series of analyses have shown that it was beneficial to combine two categories from the variable entitled “highest education level achieved by the mother” in order to compensate for the lack of variation in the values used given the relative scarcity of mothers who are non-graduates.

Weighting the Variables once the variables had been selected, it was then necessary to decide how to combine them into a single measure: the overall underprivilege index. they could be given equal weight, attributing to zones the arithmetic means of the values for the four variables. or they could be given different weights, with the index corresponding to the weighted average of the values for the four variables. For comparison purposes, the method of weighting selected was the same as the one used for calculating the overall underprivilege index of the 2008 map.

71

table 12 Weight given to the Variables in the overall underprivilege index Variables

Weight

Family income

50.00 %

Mother’s education

16.67 %

Female lone-parent

16.67 %

Parents’ activity

16.67 %

We therefore gave family income half (50%) of the total weight, with the other half divided equally among the other three variables (16.67% each).

sample Calculation: Zone x • value obtained for the family income: 35.15 • value obtained for the mother’s education: 18.20

academic indicators was performed at the zone rather than at the family level. this perspective is ecological and assumes that individuals are influenced by their environments (neighbourhood, school, workplace, etc.). the overall underprivilege index is thus applied to students according to their area of residence. It is to be noted that, for correlation analyses, only zones totaling 30 students or more have been selected.

non-graduation the non-graduation indicator corresponds to the percentage of students registered in Secondary 1 in public schools on the Island of Montréal in fall 1999 or 2000 who had not yet earned a high school diploma by age 17. Students were considered in the zone where they were living in 1999 or 2000. While the overall underprivilege index measures the socio-economic conditions that prevailed in 2011, it has a close relationship with non-graduation. In fact, 77% of the variation in the rate of non-graduation, per zone, is explained by the underprivilege index. Figure 3 shows that the points representing the zones tend to line up. A more in-depth analysis reveals that the higher the underprivilege index in the students’ area of residence, the higher the percentage of non-graduates.

• % of female lone-parent families: 27.50

slow academic progress

• % of families where neither parent works full time: 15.27

Numerous studies and observations confirm that students who fall a year or two behind in their studies are much less likely to graduate. According to a study conducted for the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal, the percentage of young Montrealers* who had earned a high school diploma by age 20 was 80% among those who had begun high school at age 12, but only 32% among those who did not begin high school until age 13.14

overall underprivilege index of zone x: (35.15 * 0.5) + (18.20 * 0.1667) + (27.50 * 0.1667) + (15.27 * 0.1667) = 27.74

3.3 relationship BetWeen the oVerall underpriVilege index and non-graduation or sloW aCadeMiC progress, per Zone the analysis of the statistical relationship between the overall underprivilege index and various

As for the relationship between slow academic progress and the overall underprivilege index, as shown in Figure 4, the indicator expresses the percentage of students who had fallen back one year or more behind others in their age group, among those registered in Secondary 1, 2, 3, and 4 in public high schools on the Island of Montréal, in fall 2011.

*Students who registered for the first time in public or private high schools on the Island of Montréal in 1999, with the exception of those who registered in schools devoted primarily to exceptional students or students with handicaps.

72

figure 3 diagram of Correlation Between the overall underprivilege index and the percentage of students Without a high school diploma, per Zone % Without a diploma 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

global underprivilege index Source:

Data on graduation received from the MELS in response to a special request.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient: 0.879 / R-two adjusted: 0.772 / N = 408 zones out of 481

there is a strong statistical relationship between the overall underprivilege index and the rate of slow academic progress. In fact, 67% of the variation in the rate of slow academic progress, per zone, is explained by the overall underprivilege index. the presence of students from families who recently immigrated improves the strength of such a relationship, which remains close, even when considering students born in Québec only (56% of common variation).

a diploma, and the socio-economic status of individuals in a given community. Figure 5 shows that the rate of non-graduation at the age of 17 increases gradually in line with the level of underprivilege; it varies from 21.7% for students living in zones with a minimal presence of underprivilege to 72.0% for students living in zones with a strong concentration of underprivilege.

socio-economic gradient Calculating the rate of non-graduation or slow academic progress per level of underprivilege provides us with a socio-economic gradient for academic success. A socio-economic gradient illustrates the relationship between social results, such as the percentage of students without

73

figure 4 diagram of Correlation Between the overall underprivilege index and the percentage of students Making slow academic progress, per Zone % With slow progress 60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

overall underprivilege index Source:

According to data from student registration forms transmitted by schools boards on the Island of Montréal.

Pearson’s correlation coefficient: 0.817 / R-two adjusted: 0.666 / N = 438 zones out of 481

figure 5 level of non-graduation at age 17 according to level of underprivilege of area of residence % Without a diploma 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 high concentration

Moderate concentration

Strong presence

Moderate presence

level of underprivilege

74

Weak presence

Minimal presence

90.0

figure 6 rate of slow academic progress according to level of underprivilege of area of residence % With slow progress 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 high concentration

Moderate concentration

Strong presence

Moderate presence

Weak presence

Minimal presence

level of underprivilege

Figure 6 reveals that the rate of slow academic progress varies between 8.5% for students living in zones with a minimal presence of underprivilege to 41.3% for students living in zones with a strong concentration of underprivilege.

3.4 CoMparisons BetWeen the 2013 and 2008 poVerty Maps the 2013 version of the poverty map differs from the preceding version in the ways in which the base map was configured and the overall underprivilege index was calculated. When the base map was updated, different variables for identifying the socio-economic characteristics of the dissemination areas were used. the source of data is different as well as

some of the variables selected. For the 2008 version of the map, data were taken from 2006 Canadian Census while, for the 2013 version of the map, data were taken from the Régie des rentes du Québec. With respect to the overall underprivilege index, neither the weight of the variables nor the calculation method was modified. however, two of the four variables used in the index were transformed; i.e., family income and the mother’s education. Furthermore, the source of data is different for three of the four variables. data pertaining to family income were taken from the Régie des rentes du Québec, and data relative to the mother’s education and the parents’ activity on the labour market were taken from the National household Survey. For the previous version, all data had been taken from the Canadian Census.

75

table 13 Comparisons Between the 2013 and 2008 poverty Maps Components

2013 Map • Data from the Régie des rentes du Québec (2010 and 2011)

Configuration method Base map

• Dissemination areas not necessarily adjacent, but located in the same sector (neighbourhood, municipality) • Number of families per zone about 450 • Number of zones: 481

graphic aspect of the map

overall underprivilege index

(indicators)

• Data from the 2006 Canadian Census • Dissemination areas not necessarily adjacent, but located in the same sector (neighbourhood, municipality) • Number of families per zone about 400 • Number of zones: 470

• Dissemination areas: visible

• Dissemination areas: visible

• Zones: invisible

• Zones: invisible

• Combination of the median net annual family income and the % of families receiving the maximum amount from the Child Assistance Program (average from 2010 and 2011)

Variables1

2008 Map

• Combination of the % of families with a mother without a diploma and the % of families with a mother without a post-secondary diploma • % of female lone-parent families

• % of low-income families (after-tax income) • % of families where the mother has no diploma • % of female lone-parent families • % of families where neither parent works full time

• % of families where neither parent works full time

Weighting

• Family income: 50%

• Low-income families: 50%

• Each of the other variables: 16.67%

• Each of the other variables: 16.67%

1- Data for the 2008 version of the map were exclusively taken from the 2006 Canadian Census, conducted by Statistics Canada. Data from the 2013 version of the map were taken from the Régie des rentes du Québec, the 2011 Canadian Census, and the 2011 National Household Survey (Statistics Canada).

ConClusion economic and social underprivilege is the principal consequence and is the determinant of slow academic progress, learning difficulties, late graduation, and drop-out rates. Few strategies can be implemented to fight against underprivilege auto-generation, apart from education and qualification. the poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal is a tool adapted to Montréal’s reality, designed to measure the extent of social and economic inequality within its borders. Using the poverty map to distinguish between wealth and poverty, we are able to

76

allocate school taxes and investment income as fairly as possible among schools serving the children at greatest academic risk. equal opportunity must be promoted through the targeted distribution of resources to counter the greatest risk factors. the 2013 poverty map is thus an instrument of social justice allowing us to inform and support schools in their efforts to promote equal opportunity among the most disadvantaged children.

referenCes 1. CÔtÉ Albert et al. La défavorisation dans les écoles primaires. Conseil scolaire de l’île de Montréal, 1996. 2. Brief of the Conseil scolaire de l’île de Montréal as part of the National Strategy to Combat Poverty and Social exclusion, 2002. 3. St-JACQUeS Marcel and dominique SÉVIgNy. Socioeconomic poverty among families with children in Montréal, Guide to the poverty map of the Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal. Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal. december 2003. 4. MoReAU lisette. La pauvreté et le décrochage scolaire ou la spirale de l’exclusion. Ministère de l’éducation du Québec, direction de la recherche, de l’évaluation et de la statistique. November 1995. 5. AUdAS Richard and J. douglas WIllMS. Engagement and dropping out of school: a life-course perspective. human Resources and Social development Canada, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy. February 2001. 6. Statistics Canada. Low-income cut-offs for 2005 and Low-income measures for 2004. Statistics Canada, Income Statistics division, Catalogue No. 75F0002MIF, Vol. 4. April 2006.

16. JeAN Sylvie. “Qui a profité de l’augmentation de la richesse entre 1999 et 2005 au Québec?” Institut de la statistique du Québec. Données sociodémographiques en bref, Vol. 13, No. 1, (oct. 2008). 17. deSRoSIeRS hélène and Amélie dUChARMe. “Facteurs associés à l’acquisition du vocabulaire à la fin de la maternelle.” Institut de la statistique du Québec. Commencer l’école du bon pied, Vol. 4, Fascicule 1, october 2006. 18. deSRoSIeRS hélène and Karine tÉtReAUlt. “Caractéristiques démographiques, socioéconomiques et résidentielles des enfants vulnérables à l’entrée à l’école.” Institut de la statistique du Québec. Portraits et trajectoires, No. 14, May 2012. 19. JAPel Christa. “Risques, vulnérabilité et adaptation - les enfants à risque au Québec.” Institut de recherche en politique publique (IRPP). Choix IRPP, Vol. 14, No. 8, July 2008. 20. oltMANS ANANAt, elizabeth. How Job Losses Affect Youngsters and Their Schools. Scholars Strategy Network – Key Findings. May 2012.

7. Statistics Canada. 2011 Census Dictionary. online version. Catalogue No. 98-301-X2011001.

21. CReSPo, Stéphane. Entrer en situation de faible revenu et en sortir : les influences d’événements relatifs au travail et à la famille. Institut de la statistique du Québec, données sociodémographiques en bref. Vol. 14, No. 1. october 2009.

8. BRooKS-gUNN Jeanne et al. “do Neighborhoods Influence Child and Adolescent development,” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 2 (September 1993), 353-395.

22. KAlIl, Ariel. Joblessness, family relations and children’s development. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Family Matters 2009, No. 83.

9. PeBley Anne R. and Narayan SAStRy. Neighborhoods, Poverty and Children’s Well-being: A Review. RANd. dRU-3001-NIChd. February 2003.

23. KAlIl, Ariel. Unemployment and job displacement: the impact on families and children. the Workplace, July / August 2005.

10. JANUS Magdalena et al. Community, Neighborhood and 5-year-olds’ Readiness to Learn at School. Canadian Centre for Studies of Children at Risk, McMaster University. head Start Conference, Washington, 2002.

24. BoUChARd, Isabelle. Les milieux à risque d’abandon scolaire – Quand pauvreté, conditions de vie et décrochage scolaire vont de pair. CRÉPAS. october 2001.

11. CReSPo Stéphane. L’inégalité des revenus au Québec 1979-2004. Les contributions de composantes du revenu selon le cycle économique. Institut de la statistique du Québec. September 2007. 12. MURPhy Brian, Paul RoBeRtS and Michael WolFSoN. High income Canadians. Perspective. Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 75-001-XIF. September 2007. 13. MoRISSette René, Xuelin ZhANg and Marie dRolet. The evolution of wealth inequality in Canada, 1984-1999. Statistics Canada, Business and labour Market Analysis division. February 2002. http://www.statcan.ca/francais/research/1 1F0019MIF/11F0019MIF2002187.pdf

14. lAPoINte Pierre, Jean ARChAMBAUlt and Roch ChoUINARd. L’environnement éducatif dans les écoles publiques et la diplomation des élèves de l’île de Montréal. Comité de gestion de la taxe scolaire de l’île de Montréal. october 2008. 15. VItARo FRANK. Liens entre la petite enfance, la réussite scolaire et la diplomation au secondaire. Centre of excellence for early childhood development. encyclopedia on early childhood development – graduation. online publication, April 15, 2003; revised october 13, 2005. http://www.enfant encyclopedie.com/Pages/PdF/VitaroFRxp_rev.pdf

25. MAgdol, lynn. Risk Factors for Adolescent Academic Achievement. University of Wisconsin-Madison/extension. Wisconsin youth Futures, technical Report # 3, 1991. 26. dURU-BellAt, Marie. Inégalités sociales à l’école et politiques éducatives. Unesco, Institut international de planification de l’éducation. Paris 2003. 27. ARChAMBAUlt, Paul. Séparation et divorce : quelles conséquences sur la réussite scolaire des enfants? Population et sociétés, No. 379, May 2002. 28. doheRty, gillian. De la conception à six ans : les fondements de la préparation à l’école. human Resources and Social development Canada, Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy. May 1997. 29. thoMAS, eleanor. Les enfants de cinq ans sont-ils disposés à apprendre à l’école? Les contextes du revenu et du milieu familial. Statistics Canada, Special Surveys division. November 2006. 30. BRUNIAUX, Christine and Bénédicte gAltIeR. Quel avenir pour les enfants de familles défavorisées? l’apport des travaux américains. Recherches et Prévisions, No. 79 – March 2005. 31. Statistics Canada. Education reference guide, 2006 Census. Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 97-560-gWF2006003, May 10, 2013.

77

500, boulevard Crémazie est Montréal (Québec) h2P 1e7 www.cgtsim.qc.ca