by Katherine Scott

On November 13, the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) released a comprehensive report on the state of children and youth in Canada. The 64-page magazine-style report, entitled The Progress of Canada's Children 1996, measures the well-being of our children according to the major factors affecting their lives – their families, their economic security, their physical safety and their access to community resources such as health care and education. The report also reviews how children and youth at different ages are faring by assessing their health status, social interactions, academic skills, and labour market status (for youth).

The progress report, the first in an annual series, reveals areas where Canadian children are doing well – and others where serious concern is warranted. In future years, advancements Canada makes on behalf of its children (or set-backs) will be measured against the benchmarks established in this 1996 report. This is one of several CCSD projects to help develop social indicators of well-being in Canada.

Encouraging Signs

The Progress of Canada's Children 1996 reviews data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) conducted by Statistics Canada. The survey confirms that Canadian children are growing up in a wide range of different family situations. But the diversity of families today and the acknowledged stresses of raising children have not led to a breakdown of the family. According to the NLSCY, most parents report that they are happy with their lives and that their families function well.

In 1994, the vast majority of children under age 12 – 84.2 per cent – lived in two-parent families, despite rising numbers of divorces and separations, and 78.7 per cent lived with both their biological parents or with adoptive parents. Another 15.7 per cent of children lived in lone-parent families, 92.8 per cent of which were headed by mothers; less than one per cent of Canada's children lived with someone other than a parent – with a guardian or in a group home, for example. Among children who experience their parents' separation, many go on to live in a "step"-family – defined as married or common-law couples with at least one child in a step-relationship with one of the parents. In 1994, 8.6 per cent of children lived in step-families.

Children in Families, 1994

Less than 10 per cent of children up to the age of 11 lived with parents who were experiencing symptoms of depression in 1994. This is good news for the majority of children, since studies show that children who live with parents suffering from serious depressive problems tend to have difficulty getting along with others and at school.

The majority of Canadian children live in families that function well. Over 90 per cent of parents surveyed in the NLSCY had scores that indicated good family relationships. Nearly all the parents indicated that they had access to moderate or high levels of social support. Networks within and outside the family provide much-needed support for both children and parents.

Disturbing Signs

Poverty and economic insecurity remain grave threats to healthy child development. In 1994, 1.4 million Canadian children lived in households struggling to survive on incomes below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs, and many families lived far below these poverty lines. Many more children lived in modest-income households whose earnings have declined over the last decade while the costs of raising children have gone up and the supply of secure, full-time employment has dropped.

In order to study the impact of growing up in families with limited financial resources, we divided children from birth to age 11 into three income groups. (Total household income includes earnings from the labour market, investments and government transfers, before taxes, of all household members.) We found that 25.7 per cent of children lived in households with incomes under $30,000 per year; 41.6 per cent in households with total incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 per year; and 32.8 per cent lived in upper-income households with incomes of least $60,000 per year. Over 90 per cent of children in the lowest income category were living in households whose total income fell below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs (which are adjusted according to the size of the family and the community in which they reside).

NLSCY findings suggest that there is an association between household income and such family-level outcomes as parental depression and family functioning. Among children in lower-income households, 17.5 per cent lived with parents who scored high on the scale for depression, compared to 8.3 per cent of children in middle-income households and only 4.8 per cent of children who lived with upper-income parents. Household income also proved to be an important factor in distinguishing between "functional" and" dysfunctional" families (using scores on the Chedoke-McMaster family functioning scale). In lower-income households, 14.6 per cent of children lived in families considered to be dysfunctional, compared to 7.5 per cent of children in middle-income households, and 5.0 per cent in upper-income households.

Distribution of Children (birth to 11 years) by Household Income and Selected Family Characteristics, 1994

Outcomes	Low-income (under $30,000)	Middle-income ($30,000 to $59,999)	Upper-income ($60,000+)
Symptoms of parental depression	17.5%	8.3%	4.8%
Family Dysfunction	14.6%	7.5%	5.0%

Differences in household income are also associated with different outcomes on child development measures. Scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) – tests which assess a child's verbal ability and scholastic aptitude – show that 25.3 per cent of children from low-income households had scores indicating "delayed development," compared to only 15.6 per cent of children in middle-income households and 9.2 per cent of children from upper-income households. Similarly, infants born into low-income households are more likely to be born underweight than babies born into middle- and upper-income households. And low birth weights are linked to higher rates of infant death and, for those children who survive, low birth weights are also linked to health problems, learning disabilites and social problems in later life.

Distribution of Children by Household Income and Selected Child Characteristics, 1994

Outcomes	Low-income (under $30,000)	Middle-income ($30,000 to $59,999)	Upper-income ($60,000+)
PPVT (aged 4 to 5) delayed development	25.3%	15.6%	9.2%
Low birth weight (birth to 3 years)	6.5%	6.3%	4.2%

Implications for Family Policy

In comparison to European countries, Canada has a very weak tradition of supporting children and families. With the exception of Quebec, governments in Canada have left the task of raising children to individual parents and families. Successive provincial and federal governments have been loathe to enact public policies and programs that infringe on the privacy rights of individuals or families, or to curtail what is viewed as the parents' responsibilities to their children. This "privacy-oriented" model of family policy helps to explain why Canada does not provide any recognition in the tax system of the costs associated with raising children and despite considerable pressure, has refused to create a national child care system.

Since the 1980s, the system of existing supports has been targeted more to low-income families. Elimination of the family allowance in 1992 capped a decade of roll-backs of financial transfers directed to families with children. While the number of child and family services such as child welfare and family violence programs grew throughout the 1980s, recent federal and provincial cutbacks threaten the existing service infrastructure. Efforts to develop promotion and prevention programs aimed at high risk children and families – such as those funded under the federal Community Action Plan for Children – have been curtailed. Child and family programs are now almost exclusively designed to reduce poverty and to assist children at high risk.

In the absence of a clear and consistent policy on children and families, Canadians are failing to provide the supportive environment necessary for all children to grow and develop, especially those at greatest risk. The data show that many children and youth continue to bear the ill effects of growing up in impoverished families.

In other countries, a variety of family policy options exist – both public and private – that aid the healthy development of children, reduce child and family poverty, and enhance family life. Canada should not be complacent. We need a comprehensive approach that combines child and family programs, tax policies, and employment strategies so that we are no longer treating only the children and families that are experiencing problems. Our goal should be to prevent problems, such as poor school performance and anti-social behaviour, before they start.

Katherine Scott is a policy and research associate with the Centre for International Statistics at the CCSD. She is the project director for The Progress of Canada's Children.

Canadian Council on Social Development, 190 O'Connor Street, Suite 100, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 2R3