A Social Profile of Greater Sudbury

Transcription

1 A Social Profile of Greater Sudbury

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 6 Introduction 7 Executive Summary Population 1.1 Population Changes 1.2 Population Projections 1.3 Age 1.4 Marital Status 1.5 Living Arrangements 2.0 Families & Children 2.1 Family Structure 2.2 Children at Home 2.3 Families with Children at Home 3.0 Seniors 3.1 Senior Population 3.2 Senior Population Projections 3.3 Seniors Living Arrangements 4.0 Language 4.1 Official / Non-Official Languages and Mother Tongue Mobility and Migration 5.1 Mobility 5.2 Net Migration 5.3 Origins and Destinations 6.0 Immigration, Ethnic Origins and Visible Minorities 6.1 Period of Immigration and Place of Birth 6.2 Ethnic Origins 6.3 Visibility Minority 7.0 Aboriginals 7.1 Aboriginal Population 7.2 Aboriginal Mobility 7.3 Aboriginal Highest Level of Educational Attainment 7.4 Aboriginal Employment and Income 8.0 Education 8.1 School Attendance 8.2 Highest Level of Schooling (Population 15 years and over) 8.3 Post-Secondary Qualifications 9.0 Labour Force 9.1 Current Trends 9.2 Unemployment by Age 9.3 Unemployment by Presence of Children and Gender 9.4 Unemployment Rate by Level of Education 9.5 Labour Force by Industry Groups Page

4 9.6 Occupation 9.7 Work Activity 9.8 Unpaid Work 10.0 Transportation and Commuting 10.1 Place of Work 10.2 Mode of Transportation to Work 11.0 Income and Poverty 11.1 Income 11.2 Poverty 11.3 Low-Income Families 11.4 Low-Income Non-Family Persons 11.5 Low-Income Female Lone-Parent Families 11.6 Low-Income Children (Under 6 Years) 11.7 Low-Income Individuals 11.8 Low-Income Seniors 12.0 Shelter and Dwellings 12.1 Household Size 12.2 Dwelling Types 12.3 Tenure 12.4 Shelter Costs Summary 116 Conclusion 122 Glossary of Selected Census Terms 123 References

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Census Families by Family Structure, Greater Sudbury, Table 2. Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICO) Table, Table 3. Incidence of Low-Income by Select Groups, CGS 2000, 2005 and Ontario, LIST OF MAPS Map 1. City of Greater Sudbury (CGS) 8 Map 2. Persons per Square Kilometre CGS 9 Map 3. Persons per Square Kilometre Urban Core 10 Map 4. Persons Aged 65+ CGS 18 Map 5. Persons Aged 65+ Urban Core 19 Map 6. Female Lone Parent Families CGS 26 Map 7. Female Lone Parent Families Urban Core 27 Map 8. Children 25+ Living at Home CGS 29 Map 9. Children 25+ Living at Home Urban Core 30 Map 10. Children Aged 18 to 24 Living at Home CGS 32 Map 11. Children Aged 18 to 24 Living at Home Urban Core 33 Map 12. Children Aged 6 and Under CGS 36 Map 13. Children Aged 6 and Under Urban Core 37 Map 14. Persons Aged 85+ CGS 40 Map 15. Persons Aged 85+ Urban Core 41 Map 16. Home Language French CGS 46 Map 17. Home Language French Urban Core 47 Map 18. Persons of Aboriginal Descent CGS 54 Map 19. Persons of Aboriginal Descent Urban Core 55 Map 20. Persons Ages with No Certificate, Diploma or Degree CGS 61 Map 21. Persons Ages with No Certificate, Diploma or Degree Urban Core 62 Map 22. Persons Ages with Apprenticeship or Trades Certificate or Diploma CGS 64 Map 23. Persons Ages with Apprenticeship or Trades Certificate or Diploma Urban Core 65 Map 24. Persons Ages with a Certificate, Diploma or Degree CGS 66 Map 25. Persons Ages with a Certificate, Diploma or Degree Urban Core 67 Map 26. Population 25 years + Unemployment Rate as Percentage of Total CGS 71 Map 27. Population 25 years + Unemployment Rate as Percentage of Total Urban Core 72 Map 28. Households by Income over $100,000 CGS 87 Map 29. Households by Income over $100,000 Urban Core 88 Map Median Household Income CGS 90 Map Median Household Income Urban Core 91 Map 32. Families by Prevalence of Low-Income CGS 94 Map 33. Families by Prevalence of Low-Income Urban Core 95 Map 34. Non-Family Persons 15 years+ by Prevalence of Low-Income CGS 98 Map 35. Non-Family Persons 15 years+ by Prevalence of Low-Income Urban Core 99 Map 36. Female Lone-Parent Families by Prevalence of Low-Income - CGS 100 Map 37. Female Lone-Parent Families by Prevalence of Low-Income Urban Core 101 Map 38. Children Under 6 Years of Age by Prevalence of Low-Income CGS 103 Map 39. Children Under 6 Years of Age by Prevalence of Low-Income Urban Core 104 Map 40. Persons 65+ by Prevalence of Low-Income CGS 106 Map 41. Persons 65+ by Prevalence of Low-Income Urban Core 107 3

6 Map 42. Owner Households Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Shelter CGS 112 Map 43. Owner Households Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Shelter Urban Core 113 Map 44. Tenant Households Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Shelter CGS 114 Map 45. Tenant Households Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Shelter Urban Core 115 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Population Changes ( ) 14 Figure 2. Greater Sudbury Population ( ) 14 Figure 3. Population Growth by Age Groups ( ), CGS 15 Figure 4. Population Pyramid ( ), CGS 16 Figure 4.1. Percent of Projected Population Change by Age Groups ( ) 17 Figure 5. Percent Change in Population by Age Groups ( ), CGS 20 Figure 6. Marital Status, 2006, CGS 21 Figure 7. Percent Change of Marital Status ( ), CGS 21 Figure 8. Living Arrangement of Population, 2006, CGS 22 Figure 9. Percent Change in Living Arrangement ( ), CGS 22 Figure 10. Living Arrangements for Non-family Individuals ( ), CGS 23 Figure 11. Family Structure, 2006, CGS 24 Figure 12. Changes in Family Structure ( ), CGS 24 Figure 13. Percent Change in Population by Family Structure ( ), CGS 25 Figure 14. Proportion of Children at Home by Age Groups, 2006, CGS 28 Figure 15. Percent Change in Child Population Living at Home by Age Groups ( ), CGS 31 Figure 16. Number of Children by Family Structure, 2006, CGS 34 Figure 17. Families with Children at Home, and Number of Children, Figure 18. Family Structure, With & Without Children at Home ( ), CGS 35 Figure 19. Population of Seniors as Percent of Total Population 38 Figure 20. Percent Change of Senior Population ( ), CGS 38 Figure 21. Proportion of Seniors by Age Groups and Gender 39 Figure 22. Percent of Change in Senior Population ( ), CGS 42 Figure 23. Percent Change in Senior Population by Living Arrangements ( ), CGS 43 Figure 24. Senior Population by Family Status by Age Groups, 2006, CGS 43 Figure 25. Proportion of Official and Non-official Languages by Mother Tongue, 2006, CGS 44 Figure 26. Percent Change in Knowledge of Official Languages ( ), CGS 45 Figure 27. Mobility Categories 48 Figure 28. Origin of Internal Migrants ( ), CGS 49 Figure 29. Destination of Internal Migrants ( ), CGS 50 Figure 30. Period of Immigration, CGS 51 Figure 31. Population by Ethnic Origins (1996, 2006), CGS 52 Figure 32. Percent Change in Population by Aboriginal Identity ( ), CGS 53 Figure 33. Percent Change in Population by Aboriginal Identity ( ), CGS 53 Figure 34. Mobility Status Place of Residence 5 years ago, by Aboriginal Identity 56 Figure 35. Highest Level of Educational Attainment by Aboriginal Identity, Figure 36. Labour Force Activity by Aboriginal Identity, 2006, CGS 57 Figure 37. Median Earnings in 2005 by Aboriginal Identity (15 years +), CGS 58 Figure 38. Median Income in 2005 by Aboriginal Identity, CGS 58 Figure 39. Population by School Attendance and by Age Groups, CGS & Ontario 59 Figure 40. Population by Highest Level of Schooling, CGS & Ontario 60 Figure 41. Population by Highest Level of Schooling by Age, 2006, CGS 63 4

7 Figure 42. Population by Highest Level of Schooling by Age, 2006, Ontario 63 Figure 43. Population by Post-Secondary Qualifications by Gender, 2006, CGS 68 Figure 44. Unemployment Rate by Age Groups ( ), CGS 70 Figure 45. Unemployment Rate by Presence of Children at Home and Gender, Figure 46. Males Unemployment Rate by Presence of Children ( ), CGS 73 Figure 47. Females Unemployment Rate by Presence of Children at Home ( ), CGS 74 Figure 48. Unemployment Rate by Age and Level of Education, 2006, CGS 74 Figure 49. Top 5 Industries ( ), CGS 75 Figure 50. Change in Labour Force by Industry Groups ( ), CGS 75 Figure 51. Labour Force by Top Industries and by Gender, 2006, CGS 76 Figure 52. Labour Force by Top Occupations and by Gender, 2006, CGS 77 Figure 53. Average Employment Income by Top Occupations, 2005, CGS 78 Figure 54. Female Employment Income as % of Males, All Occupations ( ), Canada, 78 Ontario, CGS Figure 55. Female Employment Income as a Percent of Male Employment Income by Top 79 Occupations, 2005, CGS Figure 56. Population (15 years +) by Work Activity and Gender, 2006, CGS 80 Figure 57. Population (15 years +) by Hours of Unpaid Housework and Childcare by Gender, 2006, 81 CGS Figure 58. Hours of Unpaid Housework by Gender, 2006, CGS 81 Figure 59. Hours of Unpaid Childcare by Gender, 2006, CGS 82 Figure 60. Hours of Unpaid Senior Care by Gender, 2006, CGS 82 Figure 61. Place of Work for Employed Labour Force, 2006, CGS and Ontario 83 Figure 62. Mode of Transportation to Work for CGS & Ontario, Figure 63. Percent of Population by Mode of Transportation and Age for Employed Labour Force 84 Figure 64. Median Individual, Household and Family Incomes, 2006, CGS and Ontario 85 Figure 65. Income Ranges for Individuals, 2005, CGS 86 Figure 66. Family and Household Income Ranges, 2005, CGS 89 Figure 67. Non-Family Persons Income Ranges, 2005, CGS 92 Figure 68. Median Family Income by Family Type, Including Single Person Families, 2006, CGS 93 Figure 69. Historical View of Incidence of Low-Income in CGS, Figure 70. Low-Income Families by Economic Family Structure, 2006, CGS 97 Figure 71. Low-Income Individuals by Age Groups, 2006, CGS and Ontario 105 Figure 72. Households by Household Size (1996, 2006), CGS 108 Figure 73. Percent Change in Household Size ( ), CGS 109 Figure 74. Private Dwellings by Structure Type ( ), CGS 109 Figure 75. Percent Change in Private Dwellings by Structure Type ( ) CGS 110 Figure 76. Median Monthly Shelter Costs (Owner, Tenant) by Selected Municipalities, Figure 77. Tenant and Owner Households Spending 30% + on Shelter ( ), CGS 111 5

8 AUTHORS Janet Gasparini, Executive Director Annette Reszcynski, Senior Social Planner Lynn O Farrell, Coordinator of Research & Evaluation Tammy Turchan, Researcher & Data Analyst Wanda Eurich, Researcher & Data Analyst Jody Tverdal, Executive Assistant ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank The Trillium Foundation for funding this important project. In addition, special thanks are extended to our partners at the Social Planning Network of Ontario, particularly Ted Hildebrand and Richard Lau. The City of Greater Sudbury Planning Department, and especially, Paul Bascomb, Krista Carre and David Grieve should be acknowledged for their assistance as it pertained to mapping. We would be remiss if we didn t also thank Kyle Murdoch (ESRI Canada Ltd.) in this respect. Thanks also to Amanda Colina at Statistics Canada Advisory Services for her help with navigating the Census universe. CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION Lynn O Farrell, Research/Evaluation OR Tammy Turchan, Researcher/Data Analyst, Social Planning Council of Sudbury, 30 Ste. Anne Road, Suite 105, Sudbury, ON P3C 5E1 Telephone: (705) Fax: (705) lofarrell@spcsudbury.ca OR tturchan@spcsudbury.ca This report will be available online at RECOMMENDED CITATION Social Planning Council of Sudbury (2009). A. ON: Author. COPYRIGHT Copyright for this document belongs to the Social Planning Council of Sudbury. This document may be reproduced freely for educational purposes. Social Planning Council of Sudbury,

9 INTRODUCTION The following Community Social Profile presents information and a brief analysis of trends with respect to the City of Greater Sudbury (CGS). This Profile is part of a provincial project funded by The Trillium Foundation which involves Social Planning Councils (SPC) from 14 communities. Using graphs, maps and charts, the report paints a picture of the city as it pertains to population (current and projected), characteristics of households, income and earnings, labour force characteristics, levels of education among citizens, and shelter and housing, to name but a few categories. For interpretation purposes, it is important to note that the maps represent a city-wide analysis; that is, data from each census tract is divided by CGS total population. In other words, the maps illustrate the proportional distribution across the City of Greater Sudbury. Neighbourhood maps and analyses are available upon request 1. Geographic Coverage The following report is based on the City of Greater Sudbury s geographic and administrative boundary, which includes two Aboriginal reserves (Whitefish Lake First Nation and Wahnapitae First Nation). Maps 2 and 3 provide a graphic illustration of the CGS, emphasizing its vast geography, which is characterized by a distinct urban core surrounded by a sparsely populated outlying area. It is important to note that the City of Greater Sudbury was officially formed in 2001, representing the amalgamation of six (6) regional municipalities Onaping Falls, Capreol, Walden, Nickel Centre, Rayside-Balfour and Valley East the City of Sudbury as well as nine unincorporated townships. Time Period This report attempts to provide an historical analysis primarily from although in certain instances data as far back as 1976 is included. Data Sources The Community Social Profile is based on 2006 census data, as well as data from previous censuses (1996, 2001). Where available, updated statistics are incorporated into the profile in an attempt to provide a more accurate reflection of the current situation (for example, most recent labour force indicators are incorporated into the section on Labour). Other sources of information are utilized in order to provide context with respect to the identified trends. A Decade of Change ( ) In addition to the development of a current portrait of the community using the 2006 Census data, the present report discusses changes that have taken place over a ten year time period. This timeframe has been chosen primarily because data from the 1996 and 2001 Censuses are still available. In some instances, comparisons cannot be made between 1996 and 2001 or 2006 data as a result of changed census categories. In most instances, all three census data are compared, with changes captured in both absolute (numbers) and relative (percent) terms. Geographical Units The census data that are displayed in maps are at the Census Tract (CT) level primarily because Dissemination Area data is not always available for the City of Greater Sudbury. Census Tracts are small, relatively stable areas of approximately 2,500 to 8,000 people and are located in large urban centres with urban core populations of 50,000 or more. For the purposes of clarification, in addition to providing information at the Census Tract level, Map 1 identifies the communities that make up the City of Greater Sudbury; a city which has been transformed from a predominantly mining-based economy, to its present status as a diversified regional urban centre focused on technology, education, government and health services. 2 7

10 Map 1 City of Greater Sudbury 8

11 As Map 2 illustrates, the City of Greater Sudbury covers a large geographic area characterized by rural and urban populations. In general, the population is concentrated within the core of the city, with several distinct groupings outside of the black box (please refer to the enlarged map on page 9 which shows the downtown core, the South End, Minnow Lake, and New Sudbury. Map 2: Persons per Square Kilometre CGS 9

12 Map 3: Persons per Square Kilometre Urban Core 10

13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following section captures the key social trends as identified in the three censuses (1996, 2001 and 2006). Following five years of population loss, in 2001, Greater Sudbury s population gradually increased such that in 2006, it recorded a population of 158,265 slightly higher than that reported for 2001 but well below that which was reported in 1996 (165,336). This slight growth, which is projected to be sustained over the next two decades, falls far short of provincial projections during this same time period (3% vs. 28% respectively). In general, Greater Sudbury reported a significantly higher proportion of seniors (in comparison to other age categories) and a declining youth population between 1996 and This is expected to continue into the future, with the 65+ population projected to grow substantially. From the perspective of families and households, Greater Sudbury experienced a decline in the number of married couples, as well as a decline in the number of families reporting children (especially under the age of 6) in the home. This was somewhat reflected in the decreased number of households with three or more persons, and the increased number of one and two person households in Three areas where the city witnessed relatively little change was with respect to language, mobility/migration and immigration. In the first instance, Greater Sudbury reported a consistently higher bilingual population (much higher than the province or nation), and a significant and consistent Francophone population in The past ten years saw very little change with respect to mobility/migration as Greater Sudbury reported losing migrants (predominantly youth) to Southern Ontario; although most recent data has shown a lessening of this trend witnessed a trend towards internal migration within the city itself; that is, people living in the former City of Sudbury moved outwards to the six former regional municipalities. Although 2006 saw a slight increase in the number of immigrants choosing Greater Sudbury as their destination of choice, for the most part, the city lagged behind the province in this regard. Moreover, future projections (2031) for the city are expected to fall well below projected provincial levels, with the possible exception being the rapidly growing (and young) urban Aboriginal population. Greater Sudbury witnessed improvements in terms of the education levels of its citizens between 1996 and 2006, particularly with respect to apprenticeship and trades qualifications. In addition, the city compared favourably to the province in terms of the number of residents reporting post-secondary qualifications. Greater Sudbury s labour force indicators, and particularly its overall unemployment rate, improved significantly during the past decade, the only possible exception being the consistently high youth (15-24 years) unemployment rate. In 2006, Greater Sudburians tended to be employed in retail trade and health care and social assistance occupations. A gendered analysis of employment patterns in the city showed that the mining, oil and gas extraction category had the highest concentration of the male labour force, with construction and manufacturing 11

14 representing the next highest categories. In contrast, the top industry for employed females in the city was health care and social assistance, with retail trade and educational services representing the next highest categories. Occupational categories reflected further gender differences insofar as almost two-thirds of Greater Sudbury s female labour force were employed in sales and service and business, finance and administration occupations in In contrast, one-half of the male labour force was employed in trades, transport and equipment operation and sales and service occupations. In terms of annual earnings, gender differences were expressed in the general tendency for Greater Sudbury females to report earnings significantly lower than their male counterparts in all occupations. In 2005, women reported earning 58 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts (representing a decrease of 4 cents since 2000). Employment earnings were not the only area where gender-based discrepancies were reported. Differences were also noted in the category unpaid work. Specifically, women in Greater Sudbury reported disproportionately higher rates of unpaid work (e.g. housework, caring for children and/or senior care) than their male counterparts in Median individual and household incomes in Greater Sudbury improved during the past ten years, such that in 2005, the city reported individual and household median incomes on par or better than the province. However, the city s median family income and its non-family median income was reported to be lower ($3,000 to $5,000, respectively) than that reported for the province. In general, couple families in Greater Sudbury reported earning more than single parent families ($71,446 vs. $41,813 respectively), who in turn, reported earning more than non-family persons ($41,813 vs. $23,807 respectively). Among single parent families, male lone-parents reported median incomes approximately 36% higher than their female counterparts ($51,041 vs. $32,585 respectively). Non-family persons continued to be the most vulnerable group, reporting the lowest median income ($23,807) of all census families in Greater Sudbury. Greater Sudbury witnessed significant progress on the poverty front. In 1986, almost 1 in 6 (15%) families and 1 in 2 (44%) unattached individuals lived in poverty, compared to approximately 1 in 10 (9%) families and 1 in 3 (36%) unattached individuals in Census figures also showed that in 2005, 1 in 3 female lone parents, 1 in 4 seniors living alone and/or with non-relatives, and 1 in 5 children under the age of six were living in poverty in Greater Sudbury. Female lone-parents with dependent children at home (under 18 years of age) were the most vulnerable to poverty, with more than 1 in 2 (54%) living in poverty. It is important to note that of those individuals who reported falling below the LICO, 18% were between the ages of 15 and 24. When analyzing changes experienced with respect to shelter and dwellings during the decade ( ), there was a steady and continuous decline in the size of the average Greater Sudbury household, combined with a steady increase in the number of actual households reported. 12

15 During this same time period, Greater Sudbury reported an increased number of couple households (without children), as well as an increased number of single person households. The 2006 census reported a change in building stock, the most significant being an 11% proportional increase in the number of <5 storey apartments, and to a lesser extent, a 5% proportional increase in the number of single-detached dwellings. All other dwelling types remained consistent or experienced declines. In 2006, an increasing number of Greater Sudburians were home owners as opposed to renters, reflecting a rising trend in homeownership. Compared to 2001, fewer renters (two in five or 40%) and homeowners (one in eight or 21%) in Greater Sudbury reported spending 30% or more or their annual income on shelter. A broader perspective on shelter costs which encompasses local housing markets and apartment vacancy rates showed that Greater Sudbury experienced significant change during this past decade. For example, the city had one of the lowest apartment vacancy rates in Canada, having gone from a high of 11% in 1996 to a rate of 0.7% in During this same time period, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Greater Sudbury increased by approximately $180, with the average selling price of a home in the city increasing by approximately $30,

16 1.0 POPULATION 1.1 Population Changes Statistics Canada indicates that the City of Greater Sudbury has experienced a population decline of 4 percent, or 5784 less people, since Although this is contrary to the nation and the province, which experienced population growth of 10 and 13 percent respectively; it is comparable to other northern communities, such as Sault Ste Marie (-6%) and Thunder Bay (-4%) Figure 1: Population Changes, Canada 10% Ontario 13% -4% Greater Sudbury -6% Sault Ste Marie -4% Thunder Bay -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% % change ( ) Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census However, 2001 marked a decided turn for the better as population growth began to gradually increase; as reflected in the 2% growth (or 2645 more people) that occurred between 2001 and Figure 2: Greater Sudbury Population # of people Source: Statistics Canada, 2001, 2006 Census 14

17 Figure 3 illustrates changing population trends over the course of thirty years. In general, Greater Sudbury paints a very clear picture of population shifts insofar as all age groups under 35 years experienced declines; particularly, those aged 0-9, and to a lesser extent the 10 to 19, 25 to 34 and 20 to 24 age cohorts (in descending order). Conversely, increases occurred amongst the over 35 age cohorts; particularly amongst the 65+ cohort, and to a lesser extent the 45 to 64 and 35 to 44 cohorts (in descending order). Of particular importance is the rate at which Greater Sudbury is aging, as reflected in the 184% increase in the senior (65+) population, (from 8,275 to 23,495 seniors) and the concurrent decline in the 0-4 age cohort (-45%, or from 13,875 to 7,700). Figure 3: Population Growth by Age Groups ( ), Greater Sudbury Population Source: Statistics Canada, Census 15

18 Figure 4 illustrates the population by age groups and gender within Greater Sudbury in the five year period between 2001 and 2006: the population data for 2001 is represented by the black lines and 2006 is represented in colour. Males are represented in blue (left) and females in pink (right). Figure: 4 Population Pyramid - Greater Sudbury CMA Age Groups Males Females Population % 5 The Pyramid for Greater Sudbury illustrates that between 2001 and 2006 the population remained fairly stable with decreases in the and under 20 age cohorts (particularly those aged 0-4 and 5-9) and increases in the and 65+ cohorts (particularly those aged 80+). The largest age cohort in 2006 for males was the 40 to 44 category, whereas for females it was the 45 to 49 cohort. This trend reflects a large baby boom population which is expected to increase well into the near future. Population growth, as reflected in building permits issued between 2000 and 2005 indicates that new residential development has been occurring primarily in the former City of Sudbury (40%) particularly the South End, Valley East (23%), Nickel Centre (12.7%) and Walden (10.7%) 12. Areas of the city experiencing little or no growth in 2005 included Onaping Falls, Capreol, Coniston and Falconbridge. 16

19 1.2 Population Projections Greater Sudbury s 2006 population of 158,265 is projected to grow by 4% (6945 people) by the year However, as the graph below illustrates, the population aged 54 years and younger is decreasing, particularly among the youth population (under 25) and increasing among those aged 55 and over, especially among the senior population (65+) which is expected to experience a 76% growth. Figure 4.1: Percent of Projected Population Change by Age Groups, % -1% -6% -19% -19% -18% -14% -19% 4% 7% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 76% All ages % of change Source: Statistics Canada estimates, 2007 and projections of Ontario Ministry of Finance The population aged 65 and over is projected to almost double from 15 percent of the population in 2006 to 25 percent by Maps 4 and 5 illustrate where the senior (65+) population is concentrated in Greater Sudbury. In 2006, the elderly population (65+) generally tended to reside in the following areas: pockets of New Sudbury and to a lesser extent, pockets of the South End and Minnow Lake. 17

20 Map 4: Persons Aged CGS 18

21 Map 5: Persons Aged Urban Core 19

22 1.3 Age When considering population change during the ten year period between 1996 and 2006, the largest decline (25% each) occurred amongst children aged 0-4 and youth aged Typical of baby boom trends, the age cohort (55-64) experienced the greatest growth at 31%. The next largest growth occurred amongst the senior population (65+) which grew by 22% (Please refer to Figure 5). Figure 5: Percent Change in Population by Age Groups ( ), Greater Sudbury 22% 31% 16% -11% -25% 1-17% -13% -9% -18% -25% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% % of change Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census Calculating the median age represents another way to measure the age of Greater Sudbury s population as a whole. The median age is the age at which half the population is above (older) and the other half is below (younger). Greater Sudbury reported a slightly higher (older) median age than the province and country (41 years vs. 39 years and 39.5 years respectively). The city s median age for males (40.1) and females (41.8) was also slightly older than that reported provincially and nationally 15. The Northeast region is projected to have a median age of approximately 48 by 2031, the highest of all five regions (GTA, Central, East, Southwest and Northwest). Declining fertility rates Greater Sudbury recorded the fifth lowest fertility rate for all CMA s 16 in 2005 and a large baby boomer population will slow the rate of population growth over the projected period. It is important to note that when comparing provincial population projections to actual census figures; provincial projections for the CGS have tended to overestimate population growth by as much as 7,

23 1.4 Marital Status There are five categories of marital status: legally married (and not separated); separated (but still legally married); never married (single); divorced; and widowed. In 2006, the dominant marital status (50%) of the population aged 15 years and over is that of married or common-law partners and almost one-third (31%) are single. The remainder are divorced or widowed (7% each) or still legally married but separated (4%). Figure 6: Marital Status, 2006, Greater Sudbury 4% 7% 7% 31% Never married (single) Married (not separated) Separated (still legally married) Divorced Widowed 50% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census Between 1996 and 2006 the percent of separated (but legally married ) individuals grew by 26%, which matched provincial trends. 18 The next highest categories were those who identified as divorced (+9%), widowed (+6%), and those never married/single (+3%). The only group to experience a decline (-6%) was the married (not separated) group. (Please refer to Figure 7). Figure 7: Percent Change of Marital Status ( ), Greater Sudbury Widowed 6% Divorced 9% Separated (but still legally married) 26% Married (and not separated) -6% Never married (single) 3% Total population 15+ 0% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% % of Change Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 21

24 1.5 Living Arrangements The term living arrangements captures both census family members and non-family individuals. Census families consist of married or common-law couples, with or without children, as well as loneparent families. Non-family individuals include those living with relatives (e.g. sibling, cousin), those living with non-relatives (e.g. room-mate) and those individuals living alone. Figure 8 shows that in 2006, 85% of the population lived with family persons; about 11% lived alone, with the remainder living with non-relatives (2.5%) or relatives (1.5%). Figure 8: Living Arrangement of Population, 2006, Greater Sudbury 1.5% 2.5% 11% Living with relatives Living with non-relatives Living Alone Family Persons 85% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census The decade saw a decline in the percent of the population who reported living with others (particularly those living with relatives), and an increase in the number of residents who reported they lived alone (+15%) a large portion of this group were senior women who experienced the death of their spouse 22. In general, the increase in those persons living alone was consistent with provincial trends. Figure 9: Percent Change in Living Arrangement, , Greater Sudbury -5% With family persons Living alone 15% Living with non-relatives -11% Living with relatives -35% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% % of change Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 22

25 Non-Family Individuals As the graph below (Figure 10) illustrates, the majority of non-family individuals lived alone (73%), representing a slight increase since By the same token, fewer individuals were living with relatives or non-relatives in Figure 10: Living Arrangements for Non-family Individuals, , Greater Sudbury % of Individuals 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 73% 65% 16% 19% 16% 10% Living w ith relatives Living w ith non-relatives Living Alone Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 23

26 2.0 FAMILIES & CHILDREN 2.1 Family Structure As of 2006, 85% of the city s population lived within census families 25, representing 46,325 families in total. Of these families, 83 percent (38,480) were couple families and 17 percent (7,805) were lone-parent families. The majority represented married couple families (69% or 32,090), followed by both common-law couples and female-led lone parents (14% or 6,390 and 6,360 respectively), then male-led lone parents (3% or 1,430). 26 (Please refer to Figure 11). Figure 11: Family Structure, 2006, Greater Sudbury 14% 14% 3% 69% Married Common-law Female-led lone parent Male-led lone parent Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census The trend towards more common-law, divorced and separated families, has led to a decrease in so called traditional families (characterized by legal marriage contracts) and an increase in more non-married couple families. Since 1996, there has been a decrease (-5%) in the proportion of married couples and an increase in the proportion of common-law (+4%) and lone-parent (both sexes) families (+1%). The following graph (Figure 12) illustrates these trends: Figure 12: Changes in Family Structure, , Greater Sudbury 80% 70% 60% 74% 69% % of Families 50% 40% 30% % 10% 0% 14% 13% 14% 10% 3% 3% Married Common-law Female lone-parent Male lone-parent Family Type Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 24

27 Table 1 shows proportional changes within Greater Sudbury s Census Families by Family Structure that have taken place since For example, although on the rise, lone-parent family composition remained fairly consistent during this time frame, with the majority of these families being female-led (82%) and a minority being male-led (18%). Table 1: Census Families by Family Structure, Greater Sudbury, Percent of Family Structure 1996 % 2001 % 2006 % Total Families % % % Total Married/Common-law % % % Married % % % Common-law % % % Total Lone Parent % % % Female-led % % % Male-led % % % Source: Statistics Canada, Census Another way to view family structure would be to look at how much change has occurred within a particular group (for example, lone-parent families) rather than how the whole (for example, family structure) has changed over time. The following graph (Figure 13) illustrates the change (growth or decline) each family structure experienced in the decade The greatest change occurred amongst common-law couples, with a 34% increase in this family formation. Moreover, common-law couples with children at home increased by 38% compared to those without children (28%). Another striking change was the 21% decrease in married couples with children at home and the 11% increase amongst lone-parent families particularly the 20% growth in the number of male-led lone-parent families 31. Figure 13: Percent Change in Population by Family Structure, , Greater Sudbury Married couples -6% With no children at home 16% With children at home -21% % of change Common-law couples With no children at homoe With children at home 28% 34% 38% Lone-parent families 11% Female lone-parent Male lone-parent 9% 20% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 25

28 Maps 6 and 7 illustrate that in 2006, the highest concentration of female lone-parent families was in the Minnow Lake and Donovan/Flour Mill areas. The next most concentrated areas were the South End, pockets of New Sudbury, Garson, and Valley East. Map 6: Female Lone Parent Families CGS 26

29 Map 7: Female Lone Parent Families Urban Core 27

30 2.2 Children at Home In 2006, Greater Sudbury reported 46,840 children (of all ages) as living at home. The majority of these children lived within married families (65%) or female lone-parent families (21%), and a minority lived within common-law families (11%), with even less residing with a male lone-parent (4%). 32 Figure 14 illustrates that among all the children living at home, those between 6 and 14 years of age represented over one third (37%) of all children in Although the proportion of children under 6 years of age was lower in 2006 than in 2001 (19% vs. 23%), it still accounted for one-fifth of all children at home. Youth aged represented 20% of all children living at home while those aged 25 years and over represented 10%. Figure 14: Proportion of Children at Home by Age Groups, 1996, 2006, Greater Sudbury Age Groups 25 years and over years years 6-14 years 7% 10% 13% 14% 21% 20% 36% 37% Under 6 years of age 19% 23% Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% % of Children at Home For purposes of clarification, children aged 25 years and over who remain in the home longer and/or return home after completing their education have been referred to as boomerang offspring 35. Maps 8 and 9 illustrate that in 2006, Greater Sudbury s boomerang offspring tended to live in pockets of New Sudbury, the South End and Valley East; and to a lesser extent Onaping Falls, Garson and Minnow Lake. 28

31 Map 8: Children 25+ Living at Home CGS 29

32 Map 9: Children 25+ Living at Home Urban Core 30

33 Figure 15 shows that the decade beginning in 1996 and ending in 2006 witnessed a 13% drop in the total number of children living at home. The greatest change occurred amongst the youngest and eldest of these children. There was a 26% decrease in children under age 6 at home and a 19% increase in those aged 25 and over living at home The third most significant decrease in the child population occurred within the age-cohort, which witnessed an 18% decrease in the decade beginning in 1996 and ending in Figure 15: Percent Change in Child Population Living at Home by Age Groups, , Greater Sudbury Total Children -13% 25 years and over 19% Age groups years years 6-14 years Under 6 years of age -18% -6% -11% -26% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % of change Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census Maps 10 and 11 illustrate that in 2006 the greatest concentration of children (18-24 years of age) living at home resided in the South End, the east end of Minnow Lake, as well as pockets within Valley East and New Sudbury. 31

34 Map 10: Children Aged 18 to 24 Living at Home CGS 32

35 Map 11: Children Aged 18 to 24 Living at Home Urban Core 33

36 2.3 Families with Children at Home In 2006, Greater Sudbury was home to 46,325 families. Slightly less than half (40%) of these families did not have children living at home. Of those families with children at home (60%), most had only one child, except for married couples, who were more likely to have two children. Figure 16: Number of Children by Family Structure, 2006, Greater Sudbury All Families 40% 28% 24% 8% Male lone parent 76% 21% 3% 0 Children Female lone parent 60% 30% 9% 1 Child 2 Children Common-law couple 53% 25% 16% 6% 3 or more Married couple 47% 20% 25% 8% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% As Figure 17 illustrates, there was a steady decline in the number of families with children at home (from 66% in 1996 to 60% in 2006). Moreover, there was an increase in lone-child families and a decrease in the number of families with three or more children. Figure 17: Families with Children at Home, and Number of Children, % 60% 66% 60% % of Famillies 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 34% 47% 40% 43% 41% 40% 16% 13% % Families without children at home Families with children at home 1 child at home 2 children at home 3 or more children at home Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census 34

37 Between the years of there was a steady decline in the number of married couples and an increase in the number of common-law and lone-parent families. In addition, less married couples (-4360) and more common-law (+1620) and lone-parent families (+795) had children at home in 2006 than a decade earlier (Please refer to Figure 18). Figure 18: Family Structure, With & Without Children at Home, # of Families Married couples With no children at homoe With children at home Commonlaw couples With no children at homoe With children at home Loneparent families Female loneparent Male loneparent Family Types Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census To reiterate, of all the children living at home, 19% are under 6 years of age. Maps 12 and 13 indicate that in 2006, the highest concentration of these children were located in Garson and Valley East; and to a lesser extent, pockets of New Sudbury, Minnow Lake, the South End and the Donovan/Flour Mill. 35

38 Map 12: Children Aged 6 and Under CGS 36

39 Map 13: Children Aged 6 and Under Urban Core 37

40 3.0 SENIORS 3.1 Senior Population Between 1996 and 2006, the proportion of seniors rose from 12% to 15% of the city s total population, which was higher than the province and the nation (both at 14%). The following graph (Figure 19) illustrates the proportion of seniors by age group. Figure 19: Population of Seniors as Percent of Total Population 85+ 1% % % All seniors % 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% % of total population Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census As previously stated, the senior population increased by 184% (8,275 to 23,495) between 1976 and 2006, and by 22% (19,290 to 23,495) between 1996 and The most significant growth occurred within the age cohort (70%), followed closely by the age cohort (46%). Figure 20: Percent Change of Senior Population, , Greater Sudbury % % % All seniors % 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census % of change 38

41 Proportionately, in 2006, senior women outnumbered senior men (16% or 13,275 vs. 13% or 10,220), particularly amongst the older seniors (85+). 42 In 2006, Greater Sudbury reported 2,290 seniors aged 85 years and over, which represented 10% of the senior population. In addition, the population of female seniors (85 years and older) outnumbered their male counterparts by 103% (1,535 women versus 755 men). Figure 21 illustrates the proportion of male and female seniors by age group. 43 Figure 21: Proportion of Seniors by Age Groups and Gender Females 52% 37% 12% Males 58% 35% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census Maps 14 and 15 indicate that in 2006, the highest concentration of seniors 85+ occurred in pockets of New Sudbury and to a lesser extent, the South and West End. 39

42 Map 14: Persons Aged CGS 40

43 Map 15: Persons Aged Urban Core 41

44 3.2 Senior Population Projections As previously indicated, the population of seniors is expected to grow by 76% by 2031, with the greatest growth expected to be amongst the oldest seniors (85+) at 112%. This is much greater than the 4% growth expected for the city s entire population during this same time period 44. Figure 22: % of Change Projected in Senior Population, , Greater Sudbury 85 years and over years Total population growth 4% 72% 112% years 72% All Seniors % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% % of Change Source: Statistics Canada estimates, 2007, and projections Ontario Ministry of Finance. 3.3 Seniors Living Arrangements It is important to note that approximately 1,900 seniors live in institutional care (i.e. nursing homes). Census data reflects only the age, sex, marital status and mother tongue of institutionalized populations; therefore any other characteristics of these institutionalized seniors are not included in the data or analysis (i.e. living arrangements, prevalence of low-income, etc.). In 2006, 65 percent of seniors in Greater Sudbury reported living with family persons. Of the remaining 35 percent of non-family seniors, 29 percent reported living alone, 4 percent reported living with relatives, with the remaining 2 percent living with non-relatives. In general, seniors were two and one half times more likely to report living alone (29% vs. 11%) than the general population. In terms of living arrangements, the greatest increase for the senior population between 1996 and 2006 was amongst those living with non-relatives (+33%), followed by those living with family (+27%) which represents a higher rate of growth than the growth rate for all seniors (22%). Seniors living alone experienced a 13 percent increase, and those living with relatives experienced a 15 percent decrease (Please refer to Figure 23). 42

45 Figure 23: % Change in Senior Population by Living Arrangements, , Greater Sudbury with family persons 27% living alone 13% Total senior population increase 22% with non-relatives 33% -15% with relatives -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census % change As seniors age, the proportion of those living as spouses or common-law partners tends to decrease while the proportion of those seniors living as non-family persons tends to increase. In 2006, 40% of seniors aged 85+ lived within census families (with spouses, common-law partners or children). The majority (60%) were non-family individuals, and most reported living alone. Provincially, elderly females were twice as likely as their male counterparts to live alone (Please see Glossary for census terms). Figure 24: Senior Population by Family Status by Age Groups, 2006, Greater Sudbury All seniors % 2% 5% 35% years years years 66% 55% 42% 0% 8% 2% 5% 3% 4% 27% 38% 49% Spouses Common-law partners Lone parents Non-family persons 85 years + 25% 1% 13% 60% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of Seniors 43

46 4.0 LANGUAGE 4.1 Official / Non-Official Languages and Mother Tongue Knowledge of the two official languages, English and French, refers to an individual s ability to converse in one or both of these languages, whereas mother tongue refers to the first language an individual learns at home as a child and still knows as an adult. In 2006, the two official languages (English and French) made up 91% of the city s populations mother tongue. The dominant mother tongue in Greater Sudbury was English (64%), followed by French (27%), with approximately 8 percent of the city s populations reporting the following non-official languages (in order of priority: Italian, Finnish, German, Ukrainian, and Polish). 49 Figure 25: Proportion of Official and Non-official Languages by Mother Tongue, 2006, Greater Sudbury 8% 27% English French Non-Official Languages 64% Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census In 2006, Greater Sudbury reported a significantly higher rate (39%) of bilingualism than the province (11%) and the nation (17%) 50. In addition, over one-third (39%) of the population reported speaking both official languages, 59% reported only English, and a small proportion reported only French (2%). 44

47 Figure 26 shows that between 1996 and 2006, the percentage of Greater Sudbury residents who reported speaking English only, French only, and both English and French, remained consistent. There was a very small drop (-2%) in the English speaking population, a small increase (+4%) in the French speaking population, and a 6% decrease in the population that reported speaking both languages. The most dramatic change occurred amongst those who reported speaking neither official language; a 53% decrease (from 545 to 255 persons) Figure 26: % Change in Knowledge of Official Languages, , Greater Sudbury Neither English nor French -53% English & French -6% French only 4% English only -2% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% % of change Source: Statistics Canada, 1996, 2006 Census Maps 16 and 17 indicate that in 2006, the highest concentration of the Francophone population was located in Valley East and Rayside-Balfour followed by pockets in New Sudbury. 45

48 Map 16: Home Language French CGS 46

49 Map 17: Home Language French Urban Core 47