BC Atlas of Child Development - Human Early Learning Partnership ...

The British Columbia
1st EDITION
Atlas of Child Development
Paul Kershaw
Lori Irwin
Kate Trafford
Clyde Hertzman
with
Peter Schaub
Barry Forer
Leslie T. Foster
Michele Wiens
Emily Hertzman
Martin Guhn
Joanne Schroeder
Hillel Goelman
Human Early
Learning Partnership

The
British Columbia
Atlas of Child
Development
1st Edition
Paul Kershaw
Lori Irwin
Kate Trafford
Clyde Hertzman
with Peter Schaub, Barry Forer, Leslie T. Foster, Jacqueline Smit Alex,
Michele Wiens, Brian McKee, Emily Hertzman, Martin Guhn, Joanne
Schroeder, Hillel Goelman and Keely Kinar
Human Early Learning Partnership

Canadian Western Geographical Series
editorial address
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Department of Geography
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada
SERIES EDITOR’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are due to two members of the Department of Geography, Diane Braithwaite and Ken Josephson, for
their dedication and hard work in ensuring the successful publication of this, the 40 th volume of the Canadian
Western Geographical Series.
Design & Layout: Kate Trafford
Cover Design: Yuni Wong
Editing: Simone Doust, Diane Braithwaite
THE BC ATLAS OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT / Paul Kershaw ... [et al.]
(Canadian western geographical series 1203-1178; v. 40)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-919838-30-8
1. Child development—British Columbia. 2. British Columbia—Maps. I. Kershaw, Paul W. (Paul William), 1974- II. Series.
HQ792.C3B3 2005 305.231’09711 C2005-906746-2
Copyright 2005 © Human Early Learning Partnership
and Western Geographical Press
The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy of HELP, the Western
Geographical Press, or provincial government partners.
We invite the reader to use the maps from this report liberally in support of activities that assist in early child development. The
accompanying Atlas and maps can be downloaded from the ECD Mapping Portal at ecdportal.help.ubc.ca, or hard copies can be
ordered through:
UNIpresses, 34 Armstrong Avenue, Georgetown, ON, Canada L7G 4R9
Telephone: 1-877-864-8477 (Canada) or 905-873-2750 Fax: 1-877-864-4272 (Canada) or 905-873-6170 Email: orders@gtwcanada.com
Contents of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part provided the intended use is for non-commercial purposes and full
acknowledgement is given to the Human Early Learning Partnership and the Western Geographical Press.
ALL RIGHTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES RESERVED
Printed in Canada

In Memory of Peter Schaub
T
his volume is a testament to Peter’s enthusiasm for maps
and his confidence in their power to make information
meaningful when words fall short. Despite the abrupt, tragic
and far-too-early end to his creative career, his mapping work
has made a major contribution to communities across the
province. The Atlas is just one part of his legacy for which all
at the Human Early Learning Partnership are proud and
appreciative.

Table of Contents
About the Human Early Learning Partnership
List of Maps
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
iii
v
vii
xi
xii
Table of Contents
The BC Atlas of Child Development: An Introduction
1
1
2
3
The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
1.1 What Types of Information Does the Atlas Map? 4
Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.1 Children Under Five 10
2.2 Fertility 14
2.3 Low Birth Weight 16
2.4 A Diverse Population: Focusing on People of Colour 18
2.5 A Diverse Population: Focusing on Language Diversity 20
2.6 Mortality Trends Among Aboriginal Children in BC 22
Early Development Instrument Results
Part One: Early Development Instrument Results in School Districts: An Introduction
3.1 How to Interpret EDI Maps 26
3
9
25
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.2 Physical Health and Well-being
30
3.3 Social Competence
34
3.4 Emotional Maturity 38
3.5 Language and Cognitive Development 42
3.6 Communication and General Knowledge 46
3.7 Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale 50
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
4
55
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
4.1 How to Interpret EDI - SES Maps 56
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.2 Socioeconomic Status and Physical Well-being 70
4.3 Socioeconomic Status and Social Competence 82
4.4 Socioeconomic Status and Emotional Maturity 96
4.5 Socioeconomic Status, Language and Cognitive Development 106
4.6 Socioeconomic Status, Communication Skills and General Knowledge 116
4.7 Socioeconomic Status and Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale 128
i

5
Implications for Community Action and Public Policy 139
Part One: Thinking Strategically About ECD: An Introduction
5.1 How to Use the Atlas to Inform Planning and Policy 140
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.2 ECD Mobilization 144
5.3 Hospital Utilization 146
5.4 Licensed Child Care Spaces 148
5.5 Licensed Child Care Facility Closure 150
5.6 Income Assistance 152
5.7 Children Under Seven in the Care of the State 154
5.8 Aboriginal Children in the Care of the State 156
5.9 BC’s Child Benefit Package in International Context 159
Evidence-Based ECD Information: A Powerful Planning Tool 162
Bibliography 163
ii
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

About the Human Early Learning Partnership
The Human Early Learning Partnership
The Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) is an
interdisciplinary collaborative research network that is
directing a world-leading contribution to new understandings
of and approaches to early child development.
Directed by Dr. Clyde Hertzman, HELP is a partnership of
over 200 faculty, researchers and graduate students from six
BC Universities:
The University of British Columbia
(Vancouver)
University of Victoria (Victoria)
Simon Fraser University (Burnaby)
with school districts, HELP will collect EDI data every three
years, allowing baseline comparisons over time. For more
information visit the HELP Website or the ECD Mapping
Portal at:
www.earlylearning.ubc.ca
ecdportal.help.ubc.ca
About The Human Early Learning Partnership
University of Northern British Columbia
(Prince George)
University of British Columbia Okanagan
(Kelowna)
Thompson Rivers University (Kamloops)
HELP’s mission is to create, promote and apply new
knowledge through leading interdisciplinary research to
help children thrive. Through partnering with government
and communities, HELP applies this knowledge in the
communities where children grow up and learn.
As a core research activity within HELP, the Early Child
Development Mapping Project brings together academic,
government, education and community partners to help us
understand early child development in neighbourhoods
across BC. This project began in Vancouver in 2000 and
expanded to the entire province in subsequent years,
producing neighbourhood-based maps on school readiness,
socioeconomic factors and community assets and resources.
By networking with local coalitions, HELP is assisting
communities in using the maps to better understand the
factors that influence children’s health and development.
With funding from the Province of BC through the Ministry
of Children and Family Development, and in partnership
iii

List of Maps
1
The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
3
Map 1.1.1: Geographic School District Boundaries of British Columbia 5
Map 1.1.2: Cartogram of British Columbia that Highlights Child Population 5
Table of Contents
2
Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
9
Map 2.1.1: Child Population as a Percent of Total Population, 2001 11
Map 2.1.2: Census Family Size, 2001 12
Map 2.2.1: Fertility Rates, 1995 - 1999 15
Map 2.3.1: Rates of Low-Birth-Weight Infants, 1995 - 1999 17
Map 2.4.1: Percent of Total Population Belonging to A Visible Minority Group, 2001 19
Map 2.5.1: Percent of Total Population with a Mother Tongue Other Than English or French, 2001 21
Early Development Instrument Results
3
25
Map 3.2.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Physical Well-being Scale 31
Map 3.2.2: Average Score on the Physical Well-being Scale 31
Map 3.3.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Social Competence Scale 35
Map 3.3.2: Average Score on the Social Competence Scale 35
Map 3.4.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Emotional Maturity Scale 39
Map 3.4.2: Average Score on the Emotional Maturity Scale 39
Map 3.5.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Language and Cognitive Development Scale 43
Map 3.5.2: Average Score on the Language and Cognitive Development Scale 43
Map 3.6.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Communication and General Knowledge Scale 47
Map 3.6.2: Average Score on the Communication and General Knowledge Scale 47
Map 3.7.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale 51
Map 3.7.2: Percent of Children Vulnerable on Three or More EDI Scales 53
Map 3.7.3: Percent of Children Vulnerable on all Five EDI Scales 53
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
4
55
Map 4.2.2: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in BC 71
Map 4.2.3: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Alberni 75
Map 4.2.4: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Vancouver, 2000 77
Map 4.2.5: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Vancouver, 2004 79
Map 4.2.6: Changes in Vancouver Physical Vulnerability Rates, 2000 and 2004 79
Map 4.2.8: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Physical Health and Well-being Scale 83
Map 4.2.9: Physical Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children 83
Map 4.2.10: Physical Vulnerability: All Children 83
Map 4.3.2: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in BC 87
Map 4.3.3: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in Quesnel 91
Map 4.3.4: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in Burnaby 93
Map 4.3.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Social Competence Scale 95
Map 4.3.7: Social Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children 95
Map 4.3.8: Social Vulnerability: All Children 95
Map 4.4.2: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in BC 97
Map 4.4.3: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in Vernon 101
Map 4.4.4: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in Chilliwack 103
Map 4.4.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Emotional Maturity Scale 105
Map 4.4.7: Emotional Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children 105
v

Map 4.4.8: Emotional Vulnerability: All Children 105
Map 4.5.2: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in BC 107
Map 4.5.3: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in the West Kootenays 111
Map 4.5.4: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in Terrace 113
Map 4.5.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Language and Cognitive Development Scale 115
Map 4.5.7: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children 115
Map 4.5.8: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability: All Children 115
Map 4.6.2: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in BC 117
Map 4.6.3: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in Surrey 121
Map 4.6.4: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in Prince Rupert 123
Map 4.6.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Communication and General Knowledge Scale 125
Map 4.6.7: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children 125
Map 4.6.8: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability: All Children 125
Map 4.7.2: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Socioeconomic Status 129
Map 4.7.3: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Socioeconomic Status in Campbell River 133
Map 4.7.4: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Socioeconomic Status in Nanaimo 135
Map 4.7.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale 137
Map 4.7.7: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale: Aboriginal Children 137
Map 4.7.8: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale: All Children 137
5
Implications for Community Action and Public Policy 139
Map 5.2.1: ECD Coalition Building Groups in BC: Success by 6 and Children First 145
Map 5.3.1: Hospital Utilization by Children Under Five, 1998 - 2002 147
Map 5.4.1: Licensed Child Care Spaces, 2001 149
Map 5.5.1: Licensed Child Care Facility Closure, 1997 - 2001 151
Map 5.6.1: Children Under Six in Income Assisted Families, 1999 - 2003 153
Map 5.7.1: Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003 155
Map 5.8.1: Aboriginal Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003 157
vi
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

List of Tables
2
Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
9
Table of Contents
Table 2.1.1: Children Under Five 10
Table 2.2.1: Fertility Rates, 1995 - 1999 14
Table 2.3.1: Rates of Low-birth-weight Infants, 1995 - 1999 16
Table 2.4.1: Visible Minorities and Immigration Trends, 2001 18
Table 2.5.1: Language Diversity, 2001 20
Early Development Instrument Results
3
25
Table 3.1.1: Vulnerability Cut-offs by EDI Scale 26
Table 3.2.1: Physical Health and Well-being 30
Table 3.3.1: Social Competence 34
Table 3.4.1: Emotional Maturity 38
Table 3.5.1: Language and Cognitive Development 42
Table 3.6.1: Communication and General Knowledge 46
Table 3.7.1: Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale 50
Table 3.7.2: Vulnerable on Three or More and All Five EDI Scales 52
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
4
55
Table 4.1.1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Neighbourhoods that Associate with Vulnerability by EDI Scale 60
Table 4.2.1: Significant SES Predictors of Physical Vulnerability 70
Table 4.2.2: Physical Well-being and SES in BC 70
Table 4.2.3: Physical Well-being and SES in Alberni 74
Table 4.2.4: Physical Well-being and SES in Vancouver, 2000 76
Table 4.2.5: Physical Well-being and SES in Vancouver, 2004 78
Table 4.2.7: Physical Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions 80
Table 4.2.8: Physical Well-being and Aboriginal Children 82
Table 4.2.9: Neighbourhood Range in Physical Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children and All Children 84
Table 4.3.1: Significant SES Predictors of Social Vulnerability 86
Table 4.3.2: Social Competence and SES in BC 86
Table 4.3.3: Social Competence and SES in Quesnel 90
Table 4.3.4: Social Competence and SES in Burnaby 92
Table 4.3.5: Social Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions 93
Table 4.3.6: Social Competence and Aboriginal Children 94
Table 4.3.7: Neighbourhood Range in Social Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children and All Children 94
Table 4.4.1: Significant SES Predictors of Emotional Vulnerability 96
Table 4.4.2: Emotional Maturity and SES in BC 96
Table 4.4.3: Emotional Maturity and SES in Vernon 100
Table 4.4.4: Emotional Maturity and SES in Chilliwack 102
Table 4.4.5: Emotional Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions 103
Table 4.4.6: Emotional Maturity and Aboriginal Children 104
Table 4.4.7: Neighbourhood Range in Emotional Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children and All Children 104
Table 4.5.1: Significant SES Predictors of Language and Cognitive Vulnerability 106
Table 4.5.2: Language, Cognitive Development and SES in BC 106
Table 4.5.3: Language, Cognitive Development and SES in the West Kootenays 110
Table 4.5.4: Language, Cognitive Development and SES in Terrace 112
Table 4.5.5: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and
Above Predictions 113
Table 4.5.6: Language and Cognitive Development and Aboriginal Children 114
Table 4.5.7: Neighbourhood Range in Language and Cognitive Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children and All Children 114
vii

Table 4.6.1: Significant SES Predictors of Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability 116
Table 4.6.2: Communication, General Knowledge and SES in BC 116
Table 4.6.3: Communication, General Knowledge and SES in Surrey 120
Table 4.6.4: Communication, General Knowledge and SES in Prince Rupert 122
Table 4.6.5: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below
and Above Predictions 123
Table 4.6.6: Communication, General Knowledge and Aboriginal Children 124
Table 4.6.7: Neighbourhood Range in Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability: Aboriginal
Children and All Children 124
Table 4.7.1: Significant SES Predictors of Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale 128
Table 4.7.2: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and SES in BC 128
Table 4.7.3: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and SES in Campbell River 132
Table 4.7.4: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and SES in Nanaimo 134
Table 4.7.5: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions 135
Table 4.7.6: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Aboriginal Children 136
Table 4.7.7: Neighbourhood Range in Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale: Aboriginal Children and All Children 136
5
Implications for Community Action and Public Policy 139
Table 5.3.1: Hospital Utilization Rates, 1998 - 2002 146
Table 5.4.1: Licensed Child Care Spaces, 2001 148
Table 5.5.1: Licensed Child Care Facility Closure 150
Table 5.6.1: Income Assistance Rates, 1999 - 2003 152
Table 5.7.1: Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003 154
Table 5.8.1: Aboriginal Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003 156
viii
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

List of Figures
The BC Atlas of Child Development: An Introduction 1
Table of Contents
Figure i.1.1: The Ecology of Early Child Development 2
2
Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
9
Figure 2.4.1: Comparison of Provincial and National Population Mosaics, 2001 19
Figure 2.5.1: Interprovincial Comparison of Populations with a Foreign Mother Tongue, 2001 21
Figure 2.6.1: Infant Mortality Trends Among Aboriginal Children, 1991 - 2002 23
Figure 2.6.2: Aboriginal Youth Suicide Rates, by Number of Cultural Continuity Markers Present in Community 23
Early Development Instrument Results
3
25
Figure 3.1.1: Sample Provincial Map of EDI Results and Data Table 27
Figure 3.1.2: Five Community Types by EDI Vulnerability Rates and Average Scores 29
Figure 3.1.3: Colour Codes for Five Community Types by EDI Vulnerability Rates and Average Scores 29
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
4
55
Figure 4.1.1: Socioeconomic Pie Chart Schematic 65
Figure 4.1.2: Comparison of Neighbourhood SES Spectrum in Surrey and Prince Rupert 66
Figure 4.1.3: Janus (Off-diagonal) Communities 67
Figure 4.1.4: Roman Bust of Janus 68
Figure 4.1.5: Colour Codes for EDI - SES Community Classification 69
Figure 4.2.1: Relationship Between Physical Vulnerability and SES 72
Figure 4.2.3: Physical Vulnerability in Alberni Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 74
Figure 4.2.4: Physical Vulnerability in Vancouver Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 77
Figure 4.2.5: Average Physical Well-being Scores in Vancouver, 2000 and 2004 78
Figure 4.3.1: Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and SES 88
Figure 4.3.3: Social Vulnerability in Quesnel Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 90
Figure 4.3.4: Social Vulnerability in Burnaby Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 92
Figure 4.4.1: Relationship Between Emotional Vulnerability and SES 96
Figure 4.4.3: Emotional Vulnerability in Vernon Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 100
Figure 4.4.4: Emotional Vulnerability in Chilliwack Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 102
Figure 4.5.1: Relationship Between Language and Cognitive Vulnerability and SES 106
Figure 4.5.3: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability in West Kootenay Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 110
Figure 4.5.4: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability in Terrace Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 112
Figure 4.6.1: Relationship Between Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability and SES 116
Figure 4.6.3: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability in Surrey Neighbourhoods:
Below/Above Predictions 120
Figure 4.6.4: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability in Prince Rupert Neighbourhoods:
Below/Above Predictions 122
Figure 4.7.1: Relationship Between Vulnerability on Any Scale and SES 128
Figure 4.7.3: Vulnerability on EDI Any Scale in Campbell River Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 132
Figure 4.7.4: Vulnerability on EDI Any Scale in Nanaimo Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions 134
ix

5
Implications for Community Action and Public Policy 139
Figure 5.1.1: Early Child Development Basket 140
Figure 5.1.2: Levels of Policy Intervention 141
Figure 5.1.3: What Should the Policy Mix Look Like? 143
Figure 5.1.4: Influence of Policy Intervention on EDI Scores 143
Figure 5.9.1: Change in BC Child Benefit Package Values for One Child, 2001 - 2004 159
Figure 5.9.2: Average Monthly Value of BC Child Benefit Package in International Context 160
x
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Acknowledgements
T
he British Columbia Atlas of Child Development is
the product of a valiant team effort that integrates
academic, community, and government collaborators. As
with so many successful team ventures, ours builds on
innovative leadership. The BC early childhood development
mapping project initiated by Clyde Hertzman is unique in
the international arena and is a tremendous gift to the
province. This atlas is but one snapshot of the policyrelevant
research that is making a difference in BC for which
his leadership paves the way. We are also indebted to the
late Dr. Dan Offord and Dr. Magdalena Janus of the Centre
for Studies of Children at Risk at McMaster University for
providing access to the Early Development Instrument.
Readers will enjoy interpreting an impressive scope of early
childhood development outcome data throughout this volume.
The Atlas team is indebted to the school districts and many
kindergarten teachers across the province who took the time
to complete Early Development Instrument (EDI)
assessments of children in their classes between 2000 and
2004. There would be no Atlas in the absence of timely
leadership by school officials and teachers. The Human
Early Learning Partnership looks forward to continued
collaboration around the EDI in the years to come.
Research at the Human Early Learning Partnership benefits
enormously from core funding provided by the Ministry of
Children and Family Development (MCFD) under the
leadership of the Honourable Stan Hagen and the Honourable
Linda Reid. The Atlas benefited further from project funding
made available by the MCFD and the Ministry of Health.
We are fortunate to have Leslie Foster on our team who
championed the Atlas idea in provincial government circles
and provided insightful guidance throughout its development.
Michele Wiens is the tireless manager of HELP’s mapping
project. Her commitment to the Atlas sustained our team’s
momentum from start to finish, and we owe her immeasurable
thanks for ensuring that Atlas mapping requirements retained
priority of place at the HELP Geographic Information
Systems lab despite competing demands.
In addition to leadership, successful team accomplishments
often materialize as a result of work by unsung heroes —
ours is no different. Emily Hertzman and Alison Holley
worked diligently behind the scenes to collect and coordinate
community asset data. Martin Guhn and Joanne Schroeder
chipped in with analyses of maps at timely moments when
the mountain of data seemed overwhelming. The late Peter
Schaub co-designed innovative map templates that convey
complex population health and social science data efficiently
and clearly to a lay audience. As always, Barry Forer gave
generously of his time in his capacity as the local ‘numbers
jockey’ to examine the relationships between early
development and neighbourhood socioeconomic status.
Hillel Goelman reviewed the manuscript to offer insightful
peer review and critique. Finally, our editor, Simone Doust,
performed magic to make the manuscript more accessible
to our audience beyond the boundaries of the ivory tower.
Few are as lucky as I to have co-authors that exude so much
talent alongside a generous spirit, a sense of humour and a
sheer will to persevere with a task that sometimes seemed
never-ending. The entire Atlas team is beholden to Lori
Irwin for carrying the project on her shoulders during its
infancy when it could not seem to find time at the centre of
anyone’s desk. Her talent for managing groups and
comprehensive knowledge about the early childhood
development literature shape the Atlas from beginning to
end. The work by Kate Trafford in turn makes a mockery
of the idiom that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, since
her maps are worth infinitely more. Kate’s painstaking
attention to detail, colour and design is inspiring and a
pleasure with which to work.
Last, but definitely not least, I am so appreciative of my
partner Andrea Long, whose ideas invariably filter into my
own. I cannot imagine a more intelligent interlocutor or a
more sympathetic support during the marathon that is writing
any large publication. Thanks also for tolerating the clutter
of maps all over our dining room table for so many months!
PK
Acknowledgements
xi

xii
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

The BC Atlas of Child Development: An Introduction
Introduction
T
he BC Atlas of Child Development is a communityplanning
tool. It will provide important direction and
resources for all levels of government, school boards, regional
health authorities, social service agencies, neighbourhood
organizations, philanthropic groups and civic-minded citizens
as they respond to the challenges involved in achieving the
objectives of the National Children’s Agenda. This Agenda
is informed by the recognition that early child development
yields lifelong effects for health, well-being, behaviour, and
skill acquisition.
The Atlas presents a visual summary of early childhood
development trends across British Columbia in the interests
of making complex social science and population health
data meaningful to a broad audience. Colour maps depict
information about the many intersecting environments in
which BC families live and young children grow, including
socioeconomic, natural, cultural, programmatic, and policy
environments as they interact in and across neighbourhood,
community, regional and provincial geographies (see Figure
i.1.1). A focus on a broad range of settings is important
since research has shown that by age three, development is
influenced by factors flowing from multiple levels of social
organization (Klebanov et al. 1998). Not surprisingly, the
environment of stimulation, support and nurturance that
families provide for their children matters significantly for
early development. These qualities, in turn, are influenced
by the income and other material resources that families can
devote to child raising; to their style of parenting; and to
their capacity to provide a rich and responsive language
environment.
Familial dynamics in turn unfold within broader social
networks. There is growing recognition that the “geography
of opportunity” (Galster and Killen 1995) varies significantly.
Children who grow up in affluent neighbourhoods, safe
communities or areas that mobilize local resources to cater
to the needs and desires of young families are less likely to
be vulnerable in their development than are children from
similar family backgrounds living in poor, unsafe and/or
non-cohesive neighbourhoods. Development is also
influenced by provincial and national government policy
and political culture, especially policy that mediates access
to ‘quality’ early development, learning and care settings.
Relevant policy includes the full range of child care, family
support, and family strengthening programs; public health
programs for high-risk children who suffer vision, hearing,
dental, and other health ailments; and broader social
arrangements such as subsidized parental leave and housing
programs.
The maps in this volume will help readers recognize that
the state of child development in BC emerges from the many
environments in which children and their families reside,
and to understand how these settings are sensitive to policy,
economic and other changes. In this regard, the Atlas invites
readers to contemplate a broad understanding of early
development that transcends the boundaries of any single
policy envelope — such as education, health, child care,
welfare, or justice — to see how the interrelations between
all of these areas influence children before they reach age
six.
The focus on policy-relevant information reflects the fact
that the Atlas is a unique product of a thriving universitygovernment-community
collaboration managed by the
Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP). Nurtured by
the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of British
Columbia, HELP is an interdisciplinary network of faculty,
researchers and graduate students from British Columbia's
major universities. This interuniversity partnership conducts
research to create new understandings and approaches to
early child development, and applies this knowledge by
working directly with governments and communities to
influence policy and programming to help children thrive.
While liaising with a wide range of provincial ministries
and community stakeholders, HELP works closely with the
Honourable Linda Reid, former BC Minister of State for
Early Childhood Development and the current Minister of
State for Child Care. HELP also benefits enormously from
core funding from the Honourable Stan Hagen in his capacity
as Minister of Children and Family Development (MCFD).
Various provincial ministries have cited the importance of
designing public policy on the basis of science. To facilitate
The BC Atlas of Child Development: An Introduction
1

The BC Atlas of Child Development: An Introduction
Figure i.1.1: The Ecology of Early Child Development
Culture
the of Ideologies and Attitudes
Friends
of Family
Neighbours
Health
Services
Family
The
Individual:
Sex, Age,
Health, etc.
School
Peers
Mass
Media
Church
Group
Neighbourhood
Play Area
Legal
Services
Social Welfare
Services
Patterning
ironmental Events
Env of
and
Transition
Time
Over
the Life Course; Sociohistorical
Co nditions
Source: Bronfenbrenner, 1979
this goal, MCFD and the Ministry of Health generously
supported the production of the following annotated maps
to provide policy makers, community planners, scholars and
citizens alike with a comprehensive summary of what the
latest research reveals about the ecology of early childhood
development in British Columbia. The Atlas thus provides
planning bodies with a very solid foundation on which to
make decisions about early learning, family policy,
community development and government budgets.
Atlas Outline
T
he first chapter introduces readers to the geography
of BC, discusses in more detail the kind of information
that readers will find in the Atlas, and provides information
about the establishment and appropriate interpretation of
map boundaries. Chapter 2 presents a brief demographic
survey of early childhood in British Columbia so that readers
can acquaint themselves with the population of young
children, including where they live, the share of the total
population they represent, and their ethnic and language
diversity. Chapter 3 engages with the Early Development
Instrument (EDI), reports results and provides readers with
a colour-coded conceptual framework to interpret what the
results reveal about ECD patterns of the recent past, as well
as the kinds of developmental opportunities and challenges
that communities can anticipate in the near future. Chapter
4 focuses on the social and economic characteristics of
neighbourhoods that co-occur with favourable and worrisome
EDI trends. The first part of this chapter is heavier in text
than the others, but remains a must-read for any one who
wants to use the Atlas to its full potential to consider in
detail the associations between child development and
socioeconomic patterns in and across school districts. To
assist readers with this task, there is a second layer of colourcoding
to the framework introduced in the previous chapter
so that readers can efficiently interpret associations between
community socioeconomic status and local child
development. The Atlas concludes in Chapter 5 by discussing
the implications of EDI and socioeconomic data for
community planning and public policy.
2
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

1
Chapter One:
The ABC’s of Early Childhood
Development Maps
CHAPTER ONE - The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
3

The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
1.1 What Types of Information Does the Atlas Map?
What Types of Information Does the Atlas Map?
T
he BC Atlas of Child Development helps readers
engage with a wide range of information about the
intersecting environments for early development across the
province. The Atlas includes:
provincial and school district maps to show
the distribution of 2001 Census variables in
BC communities, i.e. the distribution of
children under the age of five, median family
income in communities, occupational patterns,
unpaid caregiving patterns, ethnic diversity,
etc;
provincial and school district maps to show
the 2000 to 2004 results from the Early
Development Instrument (EDI), which
measures school readiness among children
entering kindergarten in all BC school districts;
provincial maps to show program capacities,
i.e. the number of child care spaces, hospital
utilization rates, income assistance patterns,
and so on.
By layering information, the maps reveal the distribution of
one developmental trend or setting relative to another. For
example, some maps report rates of child vulnerability
relative to the social and economic conditions in school
districts or neighbourhoods so that readers can examine the
relationship between socioeconomic status and early
development.
When mapping information at the provincial level, the Atlas
relies primarily on school district boundaries to demarcate
one region or community from another. This approach
corresponds with local early childhood development coalition
activities, which tend to be organized around school district
boundaries as well.
There are 59 geographic school districts in the province.
BC is relatively unique among Canadian provinces because
these districts are secular and do not overlap. This means
that in BC, every point in the province is in exactly one
geographic school district. In other parts of Canada, however,
there may be as many as four school districts overlapping
a single location, which raises data quality and mapping
challenges.
The 59 school districts vary significantly in their geographic
size and population. New Westminster is the smallest district,
just 18 square kilometres, compared to the largest district,
Stikine, which is over 145,000 square kilometres. Stikine’s
vast size is home to less than 2,000 people however, as is
the Nisga’a district. By contrast, nearly 550,000 people call
Vancouver’s 392 square kilometres home. Vancouver is the
most populous urban centre in the province.
Map 1.1.1 depicts BC’s 59 geographic school districts in
their actual shape. While mapping the province this way is
an obvious starting point, it makes it difficult to see that half
of BC’s population lives in Greater Vancouver. In fact, 70%
of the population of BC lives in less than 1.3% of its land
area. Given this reality, the addition of the inset to the left
of the map systematically underemphasizes the regions of
the province in which the bulk of children live.
In response, The BC Atlas of Child Development employs
alternative representations of the province to balance the
value in representing geographical shape and location along
with population size. In Map 1.1.2, each school district
retains its approximate original shape, but is sized according
to the numbers of children who live there. Although there
is some abstraction of shape, the resulting display corrects
for BC’s uneven population distribution while still retaining
the visual cues of shape and proximity that are often crucial
to map interpretation. Thus, on all maps that follow in the
Atlas, readers should note that the size of school districts
indicates the size of the population under age six. The size
does not reflect their actual geographic size.
In the few cases when data is not available at the school
district level, the Atlas relies on local health areas (LHAs)
instead to provide intra-provincial boundaries. There are
89 LHAs in BC and their boundaries track public health
service provision responsibilities across urban, rural, and
remote settings. As with school districts, LHAs vary
4
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 1.1.1: Geographic School District Boundaries of British Columbia
SD# Name
5
6
8
10
19
20
22
23
27
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
78
79
81
82
83
84
85
87
91
92
Southeast Kootenay
Rocky Mountain
Kootenay Lake
Arrow Lakes
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Vernon
Central Okanagan
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Quesnel
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
Langley
Surrey
Delta
Richmond
Vancouver
New Westminster
Burnaby
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Coquitlam
North Vancouver
West Vancouver
Sunshine Coast
Powell River
Howe Sound
Central Coast
Haida Gwaii / Queen Charlotte
Boundary
Prince Rupert
Okanagan - Similkameen
Bulkley Valley
Prince George
Nicola - Similkameen
Peace River South
Peace River North
Greater Victoria
Sooke
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Okanagan - Skaha
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Qualicum
Alberni
Comox Valley
Campbell River
Kamloops / Thompson
Gold Trail
Mission
Fraser - Cascade
Cowichan Valley
Fort Nelson
Coast Mountains
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Vancouver Island West
Vancouver Island North
Stikine
Nechako Lakes
Nisga'a
68
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
79
Cowichan
Valley
45
West
Vancouver
64
Gulf Islands
63
Saanich
62
Sooke 61
Victoria
50
Haida
Gwaii
39
Vancouver
38
Richmond
44
North
Vancouver
52
Prince
Rupert
92
Nisga’a
82
Coast
Mountains
Map 1.1.2: Cartogram of British Columbia that Highlights Child Population
41
37
Delta
43
Coquitlam
40
36
Surrey
42
87
Stikine
35
Langley
54
Bulkley
Valley
49
Central
Coast
85
Island
North
84
Island
West
91
Nechako
Lakes
72
Campbell
River
47
71
70
Alberni
81
Fort Nelson
60
Peace River
North
69
68
79
62
57
Prince
George
28
Quesnel
27
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
48
Howe
Sound
46
59
Peace River
South
74
Gold
Trail
73
Kamloops -
Thompson
58
67
53
23
83
51
19
10
22 Arrow
Vernon
Lakes
20
8
Kootenay
Lake
6
Rocky
Mountain
5
Southeast
Kootenay
CHAPTER ONE - The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Bulkley
Valley
Nechako
Lakes
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
North
Central
Coast
Quesnel
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Sunshine
Coast
West
Vancouver
Howe
Sound
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Burnaby
New
Westminster
78
Fraser-
Cascade
75
34 33
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
Coquitlam
Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Vernon
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Okan.-
Skaha
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Rocky
Mountain
Arrow
Lakes
Southeast
Kootenay
Kootenay
Lake
Kootenay-
Columbia
Boundary
Data Source:
Children under five population data provided by the
Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of Management
Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of
Canada, and have been adjusted for census
undercounting.
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Saanich
Victoria
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Abbotsford
Langley
5

The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
tremendously in geographic size, ranging from 9 square
kilometres in the Downtown Eastside in BC’s biggest urban
centre, Vancouver, to 132,000 square kilometres in the
northwesternmost LHA, Stikine. Similarly, population
ranges from 620 people in Telegraph Creek to nearly 309,000
in BC’s second largest city, Surrey. As with school districts,
the size of LHAs on maps in this atlas reflects the relative
size of the population of children that reside in the community
rather than the relative area in square kilometres.
In addition to maps that portray province-wide trends, the
Atlas features case studies that focus on selected school
districts across BC’s diverse geography and health regional
boundaries. School district maps further explore the range
of developmental settings that exist in any given community
in more detail than the province-wide focus permits. Where
possible, our case studies analyze school districts that are
home to some neighbourhoods in which developmental
trends either surpass or fall below what researchers would
expect to see in the light of local social and economic
resources or hardships. Such communities represent
especially important opportunities for policy learning since
they suggest that the particular mix of local characteristics
either mitigate or exacerbate the risks to developmental
delay that all neighbourhoods can expect to encounter.
The literature about the effects of neighbourhoods on child
development most frequently relies on data that are reported
using Census boundaries or other administrative units of
analysis (Burton and Jarrett 2000, 1117). The convenience
of Census or other survey boundaries comes with costs,
however, including the fact that Census boundaries often
do not match local perceptions of neighbourhood divisions.
In response, HELP has worked closely with communities
to benefit from local knowledge in determining
neighbourhood boundaries that more accurately reflect the
lived experience of a diverse range of people who reside in
the area. Local ECD coalition representatives were invited
to draw lines on maps of their area to signal the presence
of perceived divides in their community. While some local
coalitions opted to maintain the Census or another existing
boundary system, others opted for dramatically different
breakdowns than those employed for survey data collection.
In some communities, revision of neighbourhood boundaries
remains an ongoing process. The Atlas reports findings
according to local feedback about neighbourhood borders
that was provided to the research team by 2004.
The need to protect the confidentiality of individual
information prevented HELP from using the precise
neighbourhood boundaries proposed by locals in some
communities with very modest populations. Some perceived
neighbourhoods were home to too few kindergarten children
(typically fewer than 40) and, thus, there was a risk of
revealing private information about residents. When
representative residents determined that alternative boundaries
were not appropriate, the mapping team “suppressed” the
data from the broader public and only reported it to the local
coalition or school district. Readers will notice that some
data tables in the Atlas suppress information for the same
reason.
Working within this constraint, the initiative taken by local
coalitions to establish neighbourhood boundaries that reflect
community perceptions resulted in the identification of 465
neighbourhoods across the province for which information
is available to the public, and another four neighbourhoods
for which information is suppressed. The HELP mapping
team then digitized the local maps and built them into a
province-wide file. The team shared this file with Statistics
Canada and contracted the organization to perform a special
run of BC Census data that disaggregated information by
the 469 neighbourhoods, instead of the more traditional
Census boundaries.
Measuring Early Development
T
o measure childhood development across BC, HELP
implemented the Early Development Instrument (EDI)
in every school district in the province. The EDI was
developed in the 1990s by a team of Canadian researchers
led by Magdalena Janus and (the late) Dan Offord at
McMaster University, supported by a reference group that
included Fraser Mustard, Clyde Hertzman, Richard Tremblay,
and Doug Willms. The EDI was designed as a populationbased
tool for assessing the state of child development at
kindergarten age that would be useful for communities and
senior governments in their social planning. The instrument
is administered in the form of a checklist that can be filled
out by a kindergarten teacher after s/he knows a child for
two to three months. The EDI form takes approximately
6
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

20 minutes per child to complete, allowing an entire class
to be assessed for the cost of a one-day teacher buy-out.
The EDI asks kindergarten teachers to fill out a detailed
checklist about each child in their class in respect of five
scale measures of development:
physical health and well-being
social competence
emotional maturity
language and cognitive development
communication skills and general knowledge
While each scale will be discussed in more detail below, it
is important to recognize from the outset that the five scales
of the EDI map directly onto the three broad domains of
early child development that have lifelong influence on
health, well-being, behaviour and learning skills: (1)
physical, (2) social-emotional, and (3) language/cognitive
development.
The province-wide collection of EDI data establishes a
baseline measure for children’s school readiness and for
early child development against which we can evaluate
future progress. By examining inter-neighbourhood variation
in EDI scores, the data set also allows researchers to identify
the influence of socioeconomic and community factors on
child development. This atlas explores briefly some of those
most noteworthy influences.
storytellers, public libraries and parks.
By drawing attention to ECD assets in some communities,
the Atlas aims to initiate dialogue in BC about the following
questions: What should count as a community ECD asset?
What can your community learn from what other
communities consider assets? How can communities foster
the development of new assets while preventing the loss of
existing resources? And, finally, what can all levels of
government do to empower local organizations to evaluate
current assets or identify needed resources as part of an
ongoing process to address inequalities between social
groups within and across communities?
CHAPTER ONE - The ABC’s of Early Childhood Development Maps
Community Assets
T
o help uncover the rich range of local resources that
BC communities make available to families with
children, the Atlas team also joined with local community
members to collect information about “community ECD
assets.” These assets encompass a variety of resources,
including the skills of local residents, the resources of public,
private and non-profit institutions, as well as the physical
and economic resources offered by local geographies
(Kretzman and McKnight 1993). Some examples include
7

8
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

2
Chapter Two:
Demographic Survey of Young
Children in BC
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
9

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.1 Children Under Five
Children Under Five
Table 2.1.1: Children Under Five
R
oughly 200,000 children under age five live in British
Columbia. Approximately one in every 20 British
Columbians (or 5%) falls into this age category. The majority
of young children live in the urban and suburban communities
of the province, with about half calling the Lower Mainland
home.
Table 2.1.1 lists the child population under age five for each
school district, ranked in order according to the share of the
population that this age group represents (column 2).
Northern districts such as Nisga’a, Island West, Peace River
North, Nechako Lakes, and Fort Nelson are found on the
top of the table. Children under five make up about 8% of
the population in these communities. These districts are
home to relatively large proportions of Aboriginal citizens,
among whom fertility rates are higher than for the population
of BC as a whole.
The densely populated school districts of the Lower Mainland
(such as Vancouver, Surrey, and Coquitlam) and other urban
centres (including Greater Victoria) are scattered throughout
the list of districts. The under-five population in Abbotsford,
for instance, is about 7%, whereas children in this age range
represent just over 3% in West Vancouver.
The same information is conveyed on the adjacent Map
2.1.1. District populations that consist of a relatively high
percentage of children under five are dark green in colour;
districts with a smaller share are depicted in lighter shades
of green.
The number of young children in each school district is
listed in the first column of Table 2.1.1. The same figure
is depicted visually on the adjacent map by the size of the
shape assigned to each district. Districts that are depicted
with larger shapes are home to more children than those
with smaller shapes. For instance, Stikine, at the top left
corner of Map 2.1.1, is characterized by a small square.
The square indicates that approximately 100 children under
age five live in the district. Districts that are portrayed four
times larger than Stikine have approximately 400 children
in this age cohort. Districts that are depicted 10 times larger
have approximately 1,000 children, and so on.
SD#
92
84
60
91
81
54
50
49
52
85
59
34
82
36
48
27
87
28
75
57
42
33
43
74
62
19
37
72
35
40
58
70
78
44
79
41
5
73
8
38
23
68
71
10
22
39
6
47
20
83
46
53
67
61
51
63
69
64
45
District Name
Nisga'a
Island West
Peace River North
Nechako Lakes
Fort Nelson
Bulkley Valley
Haida Gwaii
Central Coast
Prince Rupert
Island North
Peace River South
Abbotsford
Coast Mountains
Surrey
Howe Sound
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Stikine
Quesnel
Mission
Prince George
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Chilliwack
Coquitlam
Gold Trail
Sooke
Revelstoke
Delta
Campbell River
Langley
New Westminster
Nicola - Similkameen
Alberni
Fraser - Cascade
North Vancouver
Cowichan Valley
Burnaby
Southeast Kootenay
Kamloops/Thompson
Kootenay Lake
Richmond
Central Okanagan
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Comox Valley
Arrow Lakes
Vernon
Vancouver
Rocky Mountain
Powell River
Kootenay - Columbia
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Sunshine Coast
Okanagan - Similkameen
Okanagan - Skaha
Greater Victoria
Boundary
Saanich
Qualicum
Gulf Islands
West Vancouver
Population
Under 5
Years of Age
158
237
2,414
1,970
460
1,274
370
278
1,216
944
1,820
8,289
2,709
25,249
1,949
2,690
122
1,564
2,245
5,956
4,845
4,292
11,400
730
3,008
462
5,540
2,154
6,253
3,048
847
1,648
865
6,846
3,265
10,175
2,019
5,102
1,968
8,228
7,332
4,950
2,732
240
2,805
27,306
1,155
906
1,487
2,243
1,154
979
2,166
8,678
488
2,232
1,414
497
1,659
%
of Total
Population
8.3
8.3
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.3
Population
Growth Rate

Map 2.1.1: Child Population as a Percent of Total Population, 2001
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Gulf
Islands
Central
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Quesnel
Coquitlam
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Mission
(59 School districts)
Child Population of British Columbia
Percent of total population
under five years of age, 2001
above 6.2 % (15 districts)
5.5 - 6.2 % (10 districts)
5.0 - 5.4 % (11 districts)
4.7 - 4.9 % (10 districts)
below 4.7 % (13 districts)
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Vernon
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Population increase
Population decrease
Population decrease
of more than 20 %
Okan.-
Skaha
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Rocky
Mountain
Arrow
Lakes
Southeast
Kootenay
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Kootenay-
Columbia
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Saanich
Victoria
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Abbotsford
Langley
Data Source:
BC Stats, modified from Statistics Canada 2001 Census
of Population, corrects for population undercount.
A ‘census family’ refers to a married couple (with or
without children of either or both spouses), a couple
living common-law (with or without children of either
or both partners) or a lone parent of any marital status,
with at least one child living in the same dwelling.
Children refer to any blood, step- or adopted child,
regardless of age or marital status.
11

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
The colour and shape of each district allows one to observe
that the districts of West Vancouver and Howe Sound have
roughly the same number of children; but the total population
of West Vancouver is about twice as large as that of Howe
Sound. The implication is that Howe Sound is home to a
relatively young population compared to West Vancouver,
and it is therefore depicted in darker green. Every 15th
person in Howe Sound is a young child under five, whereas
in West Vancouver children in this age range represent every
30th person.
Column three in Table 2.1.1 records population growth rates
for children under age five between 1996 and 2001. Only
three (adjacent) school districts in the province have positive
growth rates: Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster.
This trend is signalled by the red upward arrows on Map
2.1.1.
instance, as the number of young children declines in most
districts, the size, scope and location of existing service
infrastructure for families with young children may need to
be reconsidered. Conversely, the cost of implementing new
universal programs, such as child care, is declining as the
pool of potential users shrinks in number.
Map 2.1.2 depicts in colour the average number of children
per census family in each school district (see also column
4 in Table 2.1.1). It is worth noting that the districts of
Kootenay-Columbia, Boundary and Okanagan-Similkameen
stand out for having the lowest number of children per
family.
In all other school districts, the total number of children
decreased over this five year period. This trend has significant
implications for government planning and budgets. For
Map 2.1.2: Census Family Size, 2001
(59 School districts)
Child Population of British Columbia
Average number of children
per census family, 2001
above 1.3
1.2 - 1.3
1.0 - 1.1
0.9
below 0.9
Data Source:
BC Stats, modified from Statistics Canada
2001 Census of Population, corrects for
population undercount. Census family data
adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census
of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
A ‘census family’ refers to a married couple
(with or without children of either or both
spouses), a couple living common-law
(with or without children of either or both
partners) or a lone parent of any marital
status, with at least one child living in the
same dwelling. Children refer to any blood,
step- or adopted child, regardless of age
or marital status.
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Gold
Trail
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Mission
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
12
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

13
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.2 Fertility
Fertility Table 2.2.1: Fertility Rates, 1995 - 1999
T
he number of young children is declining across most
of BC in part because fertility rates in the province
are quite low. Rates are expressed as the number of births
per thousand women aged 15-49 between the period 1995-
1999, which corresponds with the birth years of the EDI
cohort examined in this atlas.
The rate ranges from a low of 17 births per thousand women
in Vancouver City Centre, to a high of 70 births per thousand
women in Nisga’a. These rates of fertility, especially in
urban settings, are not sufficiently high to reproduce the
population at current levels.
Low fertility rates in Vancouver and Richmond, and to some
extent Burnaby, are somewhat compensated for by
immigration patterns (see Table and Map 2.4.1).
While the adjacent Map 2.2.1 colour-codes fertility rates
for local health areas (LHAs), not school districts, many of
the same colour patterns emerge on this map as did on the
previous one. Low fertility rates (light colours) in Vancouver,
Richmond and Greater Victoria correspond with populations
that are home to a relatively small share of children under
age five.
Conversely, northern communities like Fort Nelson, Peace
River, Nechako Lakes, the Queen Charlottes, as well as
Surrey and the entire Fraser Valley in the south all report
high rates of fertility by BC standards (presented in dark
colours), and all have populations with a relatively large
share of young children.
For readers interested in fertility trends, it will be useful to
consider this map in regards to others that follow which
depict ethnic diversity and socioeconomic status. Cultural
and religious beliefs may have an especially significant
influence on fertility patterns, particularly family values
concerning gender roles, birth control, and abortion. British
Columbians also report higher levels of work-family conflict
than most other Canadians, and indicate that they resolve
this conflict in part by having fewer children (Duxbury and
Higgins 2003).
LHA#
92
81
83
49
56
60
55/93
34
53
54
52
51
36
88
85
33
76
29
16
50
31
27
28
59
30
75
5
67
78
32
57
10
87/94
70
14
26
42
48
12/13
35
62
163
80
72/84
65
66
40
25
47
2
165
18
22
43
15
24
37
71
19
23
4
68
166
9
46
17
21
162
1
20
41
11
6/7
69
77
64
44
38
3
61
63
164
45
161
Local Health Area Name
Nisga'a
Fort Nelson
Central Coast
Bella Coola Valley
Nechako
Peace River North
Burns Lake/Eutsuk
Abbotsford
Upper Skeena
Smithers
Prince Rupert
Snow Country
Surrey
Terrace
Vancouver Island North
Chilliwack
Agassiz-Harrison
Lillooet
Keremeos
Queen Charlotte
Merritt
Cariboo-Chilcotin
Quesnel
Peace River South
South Cariboo
Mission
Creston
Ladysmith
Enderby
Hope
Prince George
Arrow Lakes
Stikine/Telegraph Creek
Alberni
Southern Okanagan
North Thompson
Maple Ridge
Howe Sound
Grand Forks/Kettle Valley
Langley
Sooke
Vancouver - Northeast
Kitimat
Campbell River/Island West
Cowichan
Lake Cowichan
New Westminster
100 Mile House
Powell River
Cranbrook
Vancouver - Midtown
Golden
Vernon
Coquitlam
Penticton
Kamloops
Delta
Courtenay
Revelstoke
Central Okanagan
Windermere
Nanaimo
Vancouver - South
Castlegar
Sunshine Coast
Princeton
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Vancouver - Downtown Eastside
Fernie
Salmon Arm
Burnaby
Trail
Kootenay Lake/Nelson
Qualicum
Summerland
Gulf Islands
North Vancouver
Richmond
Kimberley
Greater Victoria
Saanich
Vancouver - Westside
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
Vancouver - City Centre
Population
Under 5
Years of Age
158
472
111
250
1,391
2,381
533
8,289
429
1,320
1,182
47
25,249
1,501
964
4,292
423
321
235
370
656
1,839
1,554
1,829
381
2,245
657
845
383
441
5,980
240
110
1,648
744
285
4,845
1,949
488
6,253
3,028
5,838
747
2,371
2,681
321
3,048
826
906
1,276
5,372
408
2,805
11,400
1,749
4,942
5,540
2,732
462
7,332
418
4,368
6,412
609
1,154
191
445
2,380
743
1,290
10,175
878
1,311
1,414
417
497
6,846
8,228
329
8,678
2,212
4,684
1,659
2,620
Fertility
Rate
70.1
61.2
57.9
57.7
57.7
56.2
55.7
54.5
53.1
52.5
52.3
51.4
50.2
49.7
49.5
48.8
48.3
48.2
47.5
47.3
46.6
46.4
46.2
46.0
45.3
44.5
44.4
43.9
43.7
43.4
42.6
42.5
42.2
42.0
41.8
41.7
41.5
41.2
41.0
39.9
39.6
39.5
39.2
38.5
38.4
38.4
38.2
38.2
38.0
37.9
37.7
37.7
37.1
36.9
36.6
36.6
36.6
36.2
36.1
36.1
35.4
35.3
35.1
35.1
34.8
34.8
34.3
34.2
33.9
33.9
32.4
31.9
31.5
31.4
31.1
30.8
30.2
30.1
29.9
29.2
27.2
19.8
19.5
17.4
14
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 2.2.1: Fertility Rates, 1995 - 1999
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Central Coast
has a child population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island West/
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Nanaimo
Island
North
Ladysmith
Queen
Charlotte
Gulf
Islands
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Vancouver
Westside
Howe
Sound
Vancouver
City
Centre
Stikine/
Telegraph Ck
Upper
Skeena
Smithers
Terrace
Kitimat
Bella Coola
Valley
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
Midtown
Burns
Lk
Vancouver
Downtown
Eastside
Vancouver
South
North
Vancouver
Vancouver
Northeast
Nechako
Prince George
Burnaby
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
100 Mile
House
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
Maple Ridge -
Pitt
Meadows
North
Thompson
Mission
Fertility Rate
Number of births per thousand
women aged 15 - 49 years,
1995 - 1999
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
above 53.1
45.4 - 53.1
38.6 - 45.3
32.0 - 38.5
below 32.0
(89 Local Health Areas)
(8 LHAs)
(16 LHAs)
(19 LHAs)
(28 LHAs)
(13 LHAs)
all values shown in table on previous page
Enderby
Revelstoke
Armstrong
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
Arrow
Lakes
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Kimberley
Kootenay
Lake/
Nelson
Castlegar
Trail
South
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks/
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Lake
Cowichan
Cowichan
Saanich
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Langley
Abbotsford
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
Data Source:
British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency, Annual
Reports, 1995 - 1999.
Fertility rate is expressed as the number of births per
thousand women aged 15 - 49 years from 1995 - 1999.
15

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.3 Low Birth Weight
Low Birth Weight Table 2.3.1: Rates of Low-Birth-Weight Infants, 1995 - 1999
T
he average weight of newborns is approximately
3,000-3,500 grams. If children are born weighing less
than 2,500 grams, they are considered to have low birth
weight. Low birth weight typically signals prenatal ill-health
and is a significant predictor of vulnerability in the early
years. Map 2.3.1 depicts the incidence of low birth weight
across local health areas in BC between 1995 and 1999,
which, again, is the birth period for the EDI cohort.
There are a variety of reasons that children are born with
low birth weight, some preventable and others not.
Modifiable environmental conditions that influence maternal
health or maternal behaviours that adversely impact the
developing child during pregnancy deserve particular
attention. Chronic stress, poor nutrition, smoking and
substance abuse during pregnancy are among the most
harmful prenatal factors that relate to low birth weight.
The highest rates of low birth weight are in the Southern
Okanagan, South Cariboo, Snow Country, Castlegar, Merritt,
Stikine, mid- and Northeast Vancouver, as well as Surrey.
North Thompson, the Gulf Islands, Kimberley, Golden and
Agassiz-Harrison report the lowest rates of low birth weight.
Given their regional proximity, Kimberley and Golden, with
low-birth-weight rates near the bottom of the spectrum in
BC, represent an interesting contrast to Castlegar, which
falls near the top. North Thompson and Kamloops are
another interesting case of contrasting rates, despite the fact
that they are neighbours.
When one compares the birth-weight map (2.3.1) with the
map that depicts fertility rates (2.2.1), there is no clear
correlation between the two. One can see that there are
districts that have both a high fertility rate and a high rate
of babies born with low birth weight, such as Surrey. But
the opposite pattern also occurs regularly. Many districts
with low fertility rates also have relatively high rates of low
birth weight; for example, Greater Victoria, and Midtown
Vancouver. Conversely, Peace River has a relatively high
fertility rate, and enjoys modest levels of low birth weight.
LHA# Local Health Area Name
14
30
51
9
31
87/94
165
163
36
40
15
53
41
66
162
166
17
24
57
33
27
61
37
43
50
75
23
19
161
12/13
38
83
71
62
48
92
20
42
65
21
28
164
85
54
10
45
46
25
78
68
72/84
52
11
34
77
6/7
67
35
88
80
69
22
70
60
56
4
44
81
49
55
1
2
5
47
16
29
32
59
63
76
18
3
64
26
Southern Okanagan
South Cariboo
Snow Country
Castlegar
Merritt
Stikine/Telegraph Creek
Vancouver - Midtown
Vancouver - Northeast
Surrey
New Westminster
Penticton
Upper Skeena
Burnaby
Lake Cowichan
Vancouver - Downtown Eastside
Vancouver - South
Princeton
Kamloops
Prince George
Chilliwack
Cariboo-Chilcotin
Greater Victoria
Delta
Coquitlam
Queen Charlotte
Mission
Central Okanagan
Revelstoke
Vancouver - City Centre
Grand Forks/Kettle Valley
Richmond
Central Coast
Courtenay
Sooke
Howe Sound
Nisga'a
Salmon Arm
Maple Ridge
Cowichan
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Quesnel
Vancouver - Westside
Vancouver Island North
Smithers
Arrow Lakes
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
Sunshine Coast
100 Mile House
Enderby
Nanaimo
Campbell River/Island West
Prince Rupert
Trail
Abbotsford
Summerland
Kootenay Lake/Nelson
Ladysmith
Langley
Terrace
Kitimat
Qualicum
Vernon
Alberni
Peace River North
Nechako
Windermere
North Vancouver
Fort Nelson
Bella Coola Valley
Burns Lake/Eutsuk
Fernie
Cranbrook
Creston
Powell River
Keremeos
Lillooet
Hope
Peace River South
Saanich
Agassiz - Harrison
Golden
Kimberley
Gulf Islands
North Thompson
Population
Under 5
Years of Age
744
381
47
609
656
110
5,372
5,838
25,249
3,048
1,749
429
10,175
321
2,380
6,412
191
4,942
5,980
4,292
1,839
8,678
5,540
11,400
370
2,245
7,332
462
2,620
488
8,228
111
2,732
3,028
1,949
158
1,290
4,845
2,681
445
1,554
4,684
964
1,320
240
1,659
1,154
826
383
4,368
2,371
1,182
878
8,289
417
1,311
845
6,253
1,501
747
1,414
2,805
1,648
2,381
1,391
418
6,846
472
250
533
743
1,276
657
906
235
321
441
1,829
2,212
423
408
329
497
285
Low Birth
Weight
Rate
75.8
70.4
67.6
64.6
63.2
63.1
62.1
60.5
59.7
58.6
58.0
57.0
56.8
56.1
55.6
55.0
54.7
53.1
53.0
52.9
52.9
52.3
52.2
51.8
51.7
51.6
51.5
50.9
50.1
50.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
49.6
49.6
49.4
49.3
49.0
48.9
48.6
48.5
48.5
48.4
48.4
47.8
47.6
47.3
47.0
46.3
46.0
45.9
45.7
45.5
44.9
44.7
44.6
44.5
44.4
44.2
43.7
42.6
41.2
40.2
39.6
39.3
39.2
39.2
38.8
38.8
38.7
37.9
37.9
37.5
37.4
36.6
35.3
34.4
33.8
33.7
29.8
29.8
29.3
17.7
13.7
16
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 2.3.1: Rates of Low-Birth-Weight Infants, 1995 - 1999
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Central Coast
has a children population
of approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island West/
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Nanaimo
Island
North
Ladysmith
Queen
Charlotte
Gulf
Islands
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Vancouver
Westside
Terrace
Kitimat
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
City
Centre
Stikine/
Telegraph Ck
Upper
Skeena
Smithers
Bella Coola
Valley
Vancouver
Midtown
Burns
Lk
Vancouver
Downtown
Eastside
Vancouver
South
North
Vancouver
Vancouver
Northeast
Nechako
Prince George
Burnaby
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
100 Mile
House
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
Maple Ridge -
Pitt
Meadows
North
Thompson
Mission
Low Birth Weight
Number of babies born weighing
less than 2,500g per thousand
live births, 1995 - 1999
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
above 58.6
50.2 - 58.6
42.7 - 50.1
29.9 - 42.6
below 29.8
(89 Local Health Areas)
(9 LHAs)
(19 LHAs)
(32 LHAs)
(19 LHAs)
(5 LHAs)
all values shown in table on previous page
Enderby
Revelstoke
Armstrong
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
Arrow
Lakes
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Kimberley
Kootenay
Lake/
Nelson
Castlegar
Trail
South
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks/
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Lake
Cowichan
Cowichan
Saanich
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Langley
Abbotsford
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
Data Source:
British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency, Annual
Reports, 1995 - 1999.
The rate of low-birth-weight babies is expressed as the
number of babies born weighing less than 2,500g per
thousand live births from 1995 to 1999.
17

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.4 A Diverse Population: Focusing on People of Colour
Focusing on People of Colour
Table 2.4.1: Visible Minorities and Immigration Trends, 2001
O
ne in every five people in BC belongs to a visible
minority. Map 2.4.1 is colour-coded to convey the
percentage of school district populations who are members
of visible minority groups. Districts that are home to the
highest percentage of citizens who are people of colour are
dark green; as the share of people belonging to visible
minority groups decreases, the corresponding colour assigned
to the district fades to pale green.
The urban districts in which the bulk of BC children live
report the highest rates of visible minority status. In particular,
roughly half or more of the population in Richmond,
Vancouver and Burnaby are members of visible minorities.
Ten percent or more of the population in these three districts
also immigrated between 1996 and 2001. The red suitcases
on the map visually depict this immigration trend.
Pie charts below the map present the percentages of the nonvisible
minority populations in BC and Canada. Compared
to the national average, BC has much greater ethnic diversity:
more than 20% of the population belongs to a visible minority
group, compared to less than 15% for the entire country.
BC stands out in terms of the share of the population that
enjoys an ethnic heritage linked to China or South Asia.
About one in every six British Columbians belong to these
groups — a rate that is three times as high as that found in
the rest of Canada.
SD# District Name
38
39
41
36
43
40
37
34
44
45
61
48
52
42
75
35
53
63
28
68
57
72
58
73
67
82
33
78
79
22
62
23
27
54
70
74
71
19
51
64
5
46
87
91
6
10
20
59
85
69
8
60
47
83
49
50
92
81
84
Richmond
Vancouver
Burnaby
Surrey
Coquitlam
New Westminster
Delta
Abbotsford
North Vancouver
West Vancouver
Greater Victoria
Howe Sound
Prince Rupert
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Mission
Langley
Okanagan - Similkameen
Saanich
Quesnel
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Prince George
Campbell River
Nicola - Similkameen
Kamloops/Thompson
Okanagan - Skaha
Coast Mountains
Chilliwack
Fraser - Cascade
Cowichan Valley
Vernon
Sooke
Central Okanagan
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Bulkley Valley
Alberni
Gold Trail
Comox Valley
Revelstoke
Boundary
Gulf Islands
Southeast Kootenay
Sunshine Coast
Stikine
Nechako Lakes
Rocky Mountain
Arrow Lakes
Kootenay - Columbia
Peace River South
Island North
Qualicum
Kootenay Lake
Peace River North
Powell River
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Central Coast
Haida Gwaii
Nisga'a
Fort Nelson
Island West
Population
Under 5
Years of Age
8,228
27,306
10,175
25,249
11,400
3,048
5,540
8,289
6,846
1,659
8,678
1,949
1,216
4,845
2,245
6,253
979
2,232
1,564
4,950
5,956
2,154
847
5,102
2,166
2,709
4,292
865
3,265
2,805
3,008
7,332
2,690
1,274
1,648
730
2,732
462
488
497
2,019
1,154
122
1,970
1,155
240
1,487
1,820
944
1,414
1,968
2,414
906
2,243
278
370
158
460
237
% of total pop that are:
Visible
Minorities
59.0
48.9
48.6
35.3
29.0
24.9
23.2
20.3
20.3
19.0
10.9
10.7
9.8
8.6
7.6
7.4
6.7
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.5
Recent
Immigrants
14.6
10.0
13.7
6.7
9.1
6.5
4.1
4.1
7.4
6.3
1.9
2.1
0.9
1.9
1.4
2.1
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.0
1.4
0.6
1.0
0.7
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.0
British Columbia 215,032 21.6 0.5
18
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 2.4.1: Percent of Total Population Belonging to A Visible Minority Group, 2001
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Sunshine
Coast
Central
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Coast
Mountains
West
Vancouver
Stikine
Howe
Sound
Vancouver
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
New
Westminster
Quesnel
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
Coquitlam
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Visible Minorities
Percent of total population
that belong to any visible
minority group, 2001
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
above 35.3 %
11.0 - 35.3 %
6.8 - 10.9 %
3.6 - 6.7 %
below 3.6 %
(59 School districts)
(3 districts)
(7 districts)
(6 districts)
(19 districts)
(24 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
10 % or more of total population
immigrated to Canada between
1996 and 2001
Vernon
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Okan.-
Skaha
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Rocky
Mountain
Arrow
Lakes
Southeast
Kootenay
Kootenay
Lake
Kootenay-
Columbia
Boundary
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Saanich
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Abbotsford
Langley
Victoria
Data Source:
Socioeconomic data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001
Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
Visible minority refers to whether or not a person, under
criteria established by the Employment Equity Act, is a
non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour. Under the
Act, an Aboriginal person is not considered to be a visible
minority.
Figure 2.4.1: Comparison of Provincial and National Population Mosaics, 2001
Chinese 9.4 %
South Asian 5.4 %
Black 0.7 %
Filipino 1.7 %
Other 4.4 %
Chinese 3.5 %
South Asian 3.1 %
Black 2.2 %
Filipino 1.0 %
Other 3.6 %
Non-Visible Minority
Population
78.4 %
Non-Visible Minority
Population
86.6 %
British Columbia
Percent of Population who belong to any
visible minority group
Canada
Percent of Population who belong to any
visible minority group
19

Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.5 A Diverse Population: Focusing on Language Diversity
Focusing on Language Diversity
Table 2.5.1: Language Diversity, 2001
F
luency in English contributes significantly to social
inclusion in BC, as well as childhood success in early
learning programs and school, and parental success in labour
markets across the province.
One of the major challenges in many of the child-care
settings, kindergartens, preschools, and schools in ethnically
diverse communities is the variety of mother tongues spoken
by children. It is not uncommon to find a Vancouver
classroom, for example, in which half of the children do not
speak English or French as their first language.
The dark green colour on Map 2.5.1 shows that the share
of school district populations who do not speak English or
French as their mother tongue is greatest in the urban areas
of Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond, the same three
districts that report both the highest proportion of visible
minority citizens and the highest rates of recent immigration.
This characteristic of BC’s population is depicted on the
map with the red dialogue icon.
Not surprisingly, the colour-coding on the visible-minoritystatus
and language-diversity maps look almost identical.
One curious difference, however, can be found for the school
districts in the southeast of BC (the Okanagan and the
adjacent districts). The percentage of the population that
speaks a foreign mother tongue is higher than 10% in these
districts. Interestingly, the percentage of people belonging
to visible minority groups only ranges from 2% to 4%. The
implication is that people who speak a foreign mother tongue
in these districts belong primarily to second- and thirdgeneration
Canadians who report European descent.
The chart on the bottom of the page shows that BC stands
out in Canada for being the province with the greatest share
of its population reporting a mother tongue other than English
or French. The rate of 24.3% in BC is well above the
national average of 17.6%.
SD#
38
41
39
36
43
34
40
44
37
45
53
92
82
52
51
61
48
23
33
20
67
78
42
27
87
75
35
22
91
10
58
60
74
19
63
8
54
70
57
68
47
28
73
72
46
85
83
69
6
5
79
49
59
50
64
71
84
62
81
District name
Richmond
Burnaby
Vancouver
Surrey
Coquitlam
Abbotsford
New Westminster
North Vancouver
Delta
West Vancouver
Okanagan - Similkameen
Nisga'a
Coast Mountains
Prince Rupert
Boundary
Greater Victoria
Howe Sound
Central Okanagan
Chilliwack
Kootenay - Columbia
Okanagan - Skaha
Fraser - Cascade
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Stikine
Mission
Langley
Vernon
Nechako Lakes
Arrow Lakes
Nicola - Similkameen
Peace River North
Gold Trail
Revelstoke
Saanich
Kootenay Lake
Bulkley Valley
Alberni
Prince George
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Powell River
Quesnel
Kamloops/Thompson
Campbell River
Sunshine Coast
Island North
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Qualicum
Rocky Mountain
Southeast Kootenay
Cowichan Valley
Central Coast
Peace River South
Haida Gwaii
Gulf Islands
Comox Valley
Island West
Sooke
Fort Nelson
Population
Under 5
Years of Age
8,228
10,175
27,306
25,249
11,400
8,289
3,048
6,846
5,540
1,659
979
158
2,709
1,216
488
8,678
1,949
7,332
4,292
1,487
2,166
865
4,845
2,690
122
2,245
6,253
2,805
1,970
240
847
2,414
730
462
2,232
1,968
1,274
1,648
5,956
4,950
906
1,564
5,102
2,154
1,154
944
2,243
1,414
1,155
2,019
3,265
278
1,820
370
497
2,732
237
3,008
460
% of total pop with:
Foreign
Mother
Tongue
52.7
50.0
47.9
34.3
30.0
26.5
25.8
24.4
23.4
22.8
19.4
17.0
14.7
14.5
13.7
13.1
12.9
12.2
12.1
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.7
11.7
11.5
11.5
11.4
11.3
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.5
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.0
Foreign
Language
at Home
25.0
20.8
21.7
14.0
11.4
9.9
8.0
6.9
7.2
6.7
5.4
3.6
2.0
2.7
0.9
3.1
3.7
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.8
1.1
2.2
1.8
0.8
3.0
2.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.7
3.1
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.5
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.5
0.6
1.8
1.5
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.4
British Columbia 215,032 24.3 8.8
Aa
Aa
Aa
Aa
Aa
20
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 2.5.1: Percent of Total Population with a Mother Tongue Other Than English or French, 2001
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Sunshine
Coast
Central
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Coast
Mountains
West
Vancouver
Stikine
Howe
Sound
Vancouver
Aa
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Aa
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
New
Westminster
Quesnel
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
Coquitlam
Aa
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Mission
Language Diversity
Percent of population whose
mother tongue is neither
English nor French, 2001
Aa
N Okan. -
Shuswap
above 34.3 %
14.8 - 34.3 %
10.9 - 14.7 %
9.0 - 10.8 %
below 9.0 %
(59 School districts)
(3 districts)
(9 districts)
(16 districts)
(15 districts)
(16 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
10 % or more of total population
speaks a language other than
English or French at home
Vernon
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Okan.-
Skaha
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Rocky
Mountain
Arrow
Lakes
Southeast
Kootenay
Kootenay
Lake
Kootenay-
Columbia
Boundary
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Saanich
Victoria
Richmond
Aa
Delta
Surrey
Aa
Abbotsford
Langley
Data Source:
Socioeconomic data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001
Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
Figure 2.5.1: Interprovincial Comparison of Populations with a
Foreign Mother Tongue, 2001
Newfoundland 1.1 %
Prince Edward Island 1.5 %
Nova Scotia 3.0 %
New Brunswick 1.7 %
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Yukon Territory
Northwest Territories
Canada
10.0 %
23.7 %
19.9 %
12.2 %
16.0 %
24.3 %
9.5 %
19.0 %
17.6 %
0%
25%
100%
Percent of Population whose Mother Tongue
is neither English nor French
(Note: Nunavut is excluded)
21

2
Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
2.6 Mortality Trends Among Aboriginal Children in BC
Mortality Trends Among Aboriginal Children in BC
J
ust 15 years ago, status Aboriginal children were twice
as likely to die in their first year of life than the BC
population as a whole. Figure 2.6.1 shows that this gap in
infant mortality in the province had disappeared by the end
of the 1990s. This kind of progress is remarkable —
unmatched in the rest of Canada or Australia.
Infant mortality can be taken as a leading indicator of child
well-being. That is, if there is an improvement in infant
mortality rates, one would expect that the broader aspects
of child development would follow the same trend in the
not too distant future. Thus, current EDI outcomes for
Aboriginal children should be interpreted as a single point
on a trajectory of catching up that has gradually been taking
place within the Aboriginal community since at least the
late 1980s.
six cultural continuity markers measured in the study
experienced no youth suicides during the six-year reporting
period, while those bands in which none of these protective
factors were present suffered suicide rates that were more
than 10 times the national average.
Although these data are about teenagers and not young
children, they are important in this atlas because they show
that thinking about Aboriginal children on average, and in
comparison to non-Aboriginal children, may frame the issue
the wrong way. A more accurate framework may be: why
are some communities better places for Aboriginal children
to grow up than others? We return to this question throughout
the volume.
Figure 2.6.2 summarizes groundbreaking work by Chandler
and Lalonde (1998) on Aboriginal teenage suicide. Their
work has shown that, although Aboriginal teenagers in BC
are, on average, more likely to commit suicide than non-
Aboriginal teenagers, these figures conceal huge variations
between bands. More than half of the province's Aboriginal
bands reported no youth suicides during the six-year period
covered by the study (1987-1992), while more than 90% of
the suicide occurred in less than 10% of the bands. Chandler
and Lalonde therefore conclude that youth suicide is not an
Aboriginal problem, but a problem confined to only select
Aboriginal communities.
In addition, the pair found that the rate of Aboriginal teen
suicide varies dramatically in relation to half a dozen markers
of “cultural continuity.” The markers are community level
variables that are intended to document the extent to which
each of BC’s almost 200 Aboriginal bands have taken steps
to preserve their cultural past and secure future control over
their own civic lives. Teenagers coming from communities
with low levels of control of land, health, education, cultural,
and municipal services, for example, have high rates of
suicide, while those coming from communities with high
levels of control have low rates of suicide (regardless of
whether or not the teenager actually lived on the reserve
lands or elsewhere). Every community characterized by all
22
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Figure 2.6.1: Infant Mortality Trends Among Aboriginal Children, 1991 -2002
Infant mortality
rate per 1,000 live births
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Infant mortality rates
91-96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
Status Indians
Total Population
Source: BC Vital Statistics Agency, 1997 and 2004
BC Ministry of Health Planning, 2003
CHAPTER TWO - Demographic Survey of Young Children in BC
Figure 2.6.2: Aboriginal Youth Suicide Rates by Number of Cultural Continuity Markers Present in Community
Youth Suicide
rate per 100,000 population
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Aboriginal youth suicide
rates by number of cultural
continuity markers present
in community
Source: Chandler and Lalonde,1998
none 1 2 3 4 5
Total number of cultural continuity markers
6
23

24
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

3
Chapter Three:
Early Development Instrument
Results
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
25

Early Development Instrument Results
Part One: Early Development Instrument Results in School Districts: An Introduction
3.1 How to Interpret EDI Maps
How to Interpret EDI Maps
I
n the fall of 2004, British Columbia became the first
jurisdiction in the world (to our knowledge) to produce
population-based maps of early child development.
Development is measured using the five scales of the Early
Development Instrument (EDI): physical well-being; social
competence; emotional maturity; language and cognitive
development; and communication and general knowledge.
A five-year process of validation took place during the late
1990s before the EDI was proposed for use in local
communities. It was pilot tested on approximately 16,500
children in Toronto, North Bay, Baffin Island, Ottawa, and
New Brunswick. In this way, the five scales of early
development were defined; items in the initial version that
proved to be unreliable for analytic purposes were removed,
as were items that violated the UN Charter on the Rights of
the Child; and the measurement tool’s range of utility was
determined.
Research shows that the EDI is a valid tool for assessing
school readiness at the group level, but it is not an individual
diagnostic instrument. It is appropriate in the age range of
kindergarten, plus or minus one year; and gives unbiased
results for Aboriginal and ESL children. Since it was
implemented, revalidation exercises have been undertaken
in Australia and BC. What we have learned from these
exercises has been fairly consistent with the original
validation, but we have also seen that teacher-to-teacher
variation in assessment is an ongoing challenge.
The EDI allows us to make observations about average
outcome levels and rates of vulnerability for the under-five
population in a given geographic area. Each child’s EDI
assessment is analyzed so that the child receives a score
between 0 and 10 for each scale. A score of 10 means that
the kindergarten child is doing all the things s/he should be
doing, all of the time, in relation to the given scale; whereas
a score of 0 means s/he is not doing any of them at any time.
The average score on a scale for a geographic area is
determined by adding the scores achieved by each individual
child in the area and dividing the result by the total number
of children.
More than on average outcomes, however, the Atlas focuses
on levels of childhood vulnerability within different domains
of child development. For each EDI scale there is a score,
somewhere between 0 and 10, that serves as a ‘vulnerability
threshold.’ The threshold or cut-off is the EDI score that
distinguishes the bottom 10% of children in the province
from the other 90%. Children who fall below that score are
said to be vulnerable in that aspect of their development.
The appropriate interpretation of vulnerability is that the
child is, on average, more likely to be limited in his or her
development on the identified EDI scale than a child who
receives scores above the cut-off.
While this initial approach to measuring vulnerability means
that 10% of kindergarten children will by definition fall into
this category for each scale in the first round of EDI data
collection (between year 2000 and 2004), readers should
not fall subject to the mistaken assumption that researchers
expect to find that 10% of children in each school district
are vulnerable. Rather, readers will observe throughout the
Atlas that there is tremendous variation in the rate of
vulnerability reported across the 59 school districts, and that
this range is even greater when neighbourhood levels of
vulnerability are analyzed.
The vulnerability cut-offs have shifted slightly over the past
several years but, as a result of our work in BC, we have
now permanently fixed them as the ‘BC cut-offs’ (see Table
3.1.1). The cut-off score below which children are deemed
vulnerable on the physical scale is 7.12. Similarly, the score
is 5.58 for social vulnerability, 5.83 for emotional
vulnerability, 5.38 for language and cognitive vulnerability,
and 4.72 for vulnerability on the communication and general
Table 3.1.1: Vulnerability Cut-offs by EDI Scale
EDI Scale
Cut-off
Value
Physical Health and Well-being 7.12
Social Competence 5.58
Emotional Maturity 5.83
Language and Cognitive Development 5.38
Communication and General Knowledge 4.72
26
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

knowledge scale. These cut-offs are virtually identical to
what Dr. Janus established based upon the global data (+/-
0.1 on a scale of 0-10).
Since the EDI is not an individual diagnostic, EDI
vulnerability cut-offs facilitate analysis of groups of children,
rather than individual children. In other words, it is a
meaningful use of the EDI to say something like:
20% of children in neighbourhood A are vulnerable
in their physical development, whereas only 5%
are vulnerable in neighbourhood B.
The feature maps in this chapter display the proportion of
vulnerable children in the 59 geographic school districts of
residence across the province, as measured by each of the
five scales of the EDI. All children, whether or not they
attend school in their home district, are accounted for in the
district where they live. In other words, for the purposes of
the EDI, school districts are serving as residential areas, not
as administrative areas. Children going to independent or
on-reserve schools are accounted for in the geographic
school district where they live. Similarly, in the rare cases
where children live in one school district but go to school
in another district, EDI evaluations are completed by the
kindergarten teacher where they go to school, but are
accounted for in the school district where they live. The
reason for this is that children spend their first five years of
life in families and communities that influence their
development. Since the primary focus of the EDI work is
to reflect upon the quality of those early experiences, mapping
children according to where they live best serves this purpose.
The sample map shown in Figure 3.1.1 illustrates how the
59 school districts on all provincial maps in the Atlas are
colour-coded according to ‘quintiles’ of vulnerability. That
is, the 12 (59/5 equals approximately 12) school districts
with the smallest proportion of children vulnerable in their
physical development are coloured dark green; followed by
the second group in light green; the middle group in neutral
yellow; the second highest vulnerability group in light red;
and the most vulnerable in dark red.
As the sample figure (3.1.1) indicates, each map is
accompanied by a data table. The table includes a column
reporting the rate of vulnerability for each school district
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Figure 3.1.1: Sample Provincial Map of EDI Results and Data Table
Physical Health and Well-being
SD# District name Percent
vulnerable
19
20
51
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Boundary
EDI Results
4.49
4.69
5.03
Average
score
9.05
9.08
8.96
Island
North
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Central
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Bulkley
Valley
Nechako
Lakes
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Physical Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
above 14.20 %
11.81 - 14.20 %
9.81 - 11.80 %
8.01 - 9.80 %
below 8.00 %
(9 districts)
(11 districts)
(14 districts)
(13 districts)
(9 districts)
8
38
5
35
46
70
54
47
75
69
28
82
Kootenay Lake
Richmond
Southeast Kootenay
Langley
Sunshine Coast
Alberni
Bulkley Valley
Powell River
Mission
Qualicum
Quesnel
Coast Mountains
8.57
8.71
9.27
9.88
9.96
10.00
12.27
12.30
12.47
14.80
14.86
15.15
8.63
8.85
8.63
8.73
8.72
8.62
8.33
8.54
8.58
8.42
8.42
8.53
*Note: Due to size limitations, not all districts and
variables are listed in the table
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Saanich
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Victoria
Sunshine
Coast
West
Vancouver
Howe
Sound
Vancouver
Richmond
North
Vancouver
Burnaby
Delta
New
Westminster
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
Coquitlam
Surrey
Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Abbotsford
Langley
Revelstoke
Vernon
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Okan.-
Skaha
Rocky
Mountain
Arrow
Lakes
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Southeast
Kootenay
Kootenay
Lake
Kootenay-
Columbia
Boundary
27

Early Development Instrument Results
Part One: Early Development Instrument Results in School Districts: An Introduction
as measured by a given EDI scale. Districts are listed in
ascending order: those with the lowest vulnerability levels
are presented at the top; those with the highest vulnerability
rates are ranked at the bottom. To correspond with the
accompanying map, the vulnerability column is also colourcoded.
The top quintile is coloured dark green; the second
group is light green, and so on, until one reaches the bottom
quintile which is coloured dark red.
The data table supplements the vulnerability column with
a second column that reports average scores achieved by
children in each school district for the scale under question.
This information is also colour-coded so that the 12 school
districts that have the highest average scores are dark green;
the next 12 are light green, etc. Readers will note that the
data listed in the average score column are also represented
pictorially in a small provincial map below each of the
feature vulnerability maps that are the primary focus of the
Atlas.
Since school districts that have the lowest vulnerability rates
do not necessarily report the highest average scores, the
colour assigned a district in respect of vulnerability levels
often differs from that assigned to it in terms of its average
score. We will see below that this variation in colour-coding
is important for categorizing school districts, which is in
turn useful for community planning purposes.
Using the EDI Maps to Classify Neighbourhoods
T
he EDI provides information that can be interpreted
both backwards and forwards in time. The primary
direction of interpretation for the purposes of ECD is
backwards. That is, the results of the EDI can be interpreted
to understand the qualities of early experience that children
in a given area had from birth to kindergarten entry. However,
the EDI can also be interpreted prospectively, in that the
results frame the challenges that families, schools,
communities, and governments will have in supporting their
children’s development from kindergarten onward.
Looking forward in time, it can be valuable to use EDI
results to classify and interpret the neighbourhoods where
children and their families live. Classification is important
for helping communities to better understand the early
childhood development needs of their neighbourhoods and
to determine the best mix of policy and program interventions.
By comparing average outcomes with vulnerability levels
based on provincial cut-offs in a given area, EDI results
point to five broad community categories.
1. Average communities report average results,
both in terms of the average EDI score reported
for children in the area, and the proportion of
children identified as vulnerable. We consider
results ‘average’ when they fall in the third
quintile.
2. Low Challenge communities report low levels
of vulnerability and a high average score. This
EDI pattern signals a community where many
kids are excelling and few are at risk. Looking
ahead, such communities can be appropriately
depicted as low challenge areas relative to many
others in BC, since most local children seem to
be avoiding the biological, health, social, and
economic impediments that have potential to
undermine development.
3. High Challenge communities suffer high
vulnerability rates and low average scores. This
EDI pattern is opposite that of low challenge
regions. It indicates that few children are thriving
in the community according to provincial norms,
while many struggle with heightened risk of
developmental difficulty.
4. Buffered communities enjoy low vulnerability
rates, while also reporting low average scores
compared to other regions in the province. The
low average scores indicate that relatively few
children in the area are thriving developmentally
compared to provincial norms. But despite this
worrisome finding, the community is succeeding
to protect or buffer many of its children from
falling below provincial cut-off rates that mark
vulnerability.
5. A Wide Range community is one that enjoys
a relatively high average score on an EDI scale,
which signals that many children in the
neighbourhood are excelling. At the same time,
28
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Figure 3.1.2: Five Community Types by EDI Vulnerability Rates and Average Scores
Percentage of
Children
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Vulnerability Cut-off
Average
Low Challenge
High Challenge
Buffered
Wide Range
High
Challenge
Buffered
EDI Score
Average
Low
Challenge
HIGH
Moderate avg score, moderate vulnerability
High avg score, low vulnerability
Low avg score, high vulnerability
Low avg score, low vulnerability
High avg score, high vulnerability
Wide
Range
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
however, the community reports high rates
of vulnerability. The community’s
combination of a high share of children who
are flourishing alongside a high share of
children who are struggling underscores the
wide range label.
The bell curves in Figure 3.1.2 illustrate this community
typology. Each curve represents the distribution of EDI
scores in a given school district, community or
neighbourhood. The figure can represent any one of the
EDI scales or a composite measure of vulnerability on at
least one of the scales. Scores increase to the right and
decrease to the left, such that, below a certain score, the
children are deemed vulnerable. The vulnerability cut-off
is represented by the dotted vertical line in the figure. The
vulnerability rate in the neighbourhood or district rises and
falls with the share of children who have EDI scores to the
left of the vulnerability cut-off. Every community has a
unique distribution of EDI scores, with a unique
vulnerability rate, average score, and spread (range or
variance) of scores.
The Atlas classifies districts and neighbourhoods using the
colour-coded EDI maps and data tables. This colour-coded
community typology, as displayed in Figure 3.1.3, will be
employed throughout to help readers interpret EDI maps
reporting results from each of the five scales, starting with
physical health and well-being.
Figure 3.1.3: Colour Codes for Five Community Types by
EDI Vulnerability Rates and Average Scores
Classification
Average
Low Challenge
High Challenge
Buffered
Wide Range
Vulnerability
Map/Data Column
Yellow
Dark Green
Dark Red
Dark Green
Dark Red
Average Score
Map/Data Column
Yellow
Dark Green
Dark Red
Dark Red
Dark Green
29

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.2 Physical Health and Well-being
Physical Health and Well-being
P
hysical health and well-being in the early years is
intricately connected to lifelong health. Research
indicates that illnesses such as coronary heart disease and
elevated blood pressure have been directly associated with
events in early life. Similarly, infants who are born at term
but are small for their gestational age may be at increased
risk for adult-onset diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart
disease several decades later (Hertzman 2000).
Research confirms that the course of children's physical
health and well-being can be altered with appropriate
intervention (Hertzman et al. 2001; Wadsworth 1997). The
baseline data about children's physical development displayed
in Map 3.2.1 can therefore be helpful to community partners
and policy makers in assessing the types and levels of
intervention needed in their communities to diagnose and
respond to physical vulnerabilities among local children.
The physical health and well-being scale of the Early
Development Instrument measures children’s fine and gross
motor development, levels of energy, daily preparedness for
school (do they arrive late or hungry), washroom
independence, and established handedness. Children who
start school with age-appropriate motor skills, adequate
energy levels from proper sleep and nutritional intake, and
demonstrate age-appropriate independence can take full
advantage of learning opportunities offered by school and
enjoy engagement in social groups.
Conversely, children who enter school more vulnerable in
terms of their physical health are less favourably positioned
to benefit from the social and educational opportunities that
kindergarten provides. The typical profile of a child who
falls below the physical vulnerability EDI cut-off is one
who displays average or poor motor skills (both fine and
gross), who is sometimes tired or hungry, usually clumsy,
with flagging energy levels, and average overall physical
development.
Physical vulnerability rates across BC’s 59 geographic school
districts are reported in Map 3.2.1, the larger of the two
maps on the right. The rate of physical vulnerability among
kindergarten children ranges from a low of 4.5% in
Table 3.2.1: Physical Health and Well-being
SD# District Name EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
19
20
51
44
6
72
45
37
22
36
43
8
38
63
5
83
34
41
71
33
53
62
35
46
70
64
61
78
60
81
73
40
48
27
23
42
54
47
75
59
57
68
91
67
79
87
74
69
28
82
58
10
85
50
39
52
49
92
84
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Boundary
North Vancouver
Rocky Mountain
Campbell River
West Vancouver
Delta
Vernon
Surrey
Coquitlam
Kootenay Lake
Richmond
Saanich
Southeast Kootenay
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Abbotsford
Burnaby
Comox Valley
Chilliwack
Okanagan - Similkameen
Sooke
Langley
Sunshine Coast
Alberni
Gulf Islands
Greater Victoria
Fraser - Cascade
Peace River North
Fort Nelson
Kamloops - Thompson
New Westminster
Howe Sound
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Central Okanagan
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Bulkley Valley
Powell River
Mission
Peace River South
Prince George
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Nechako Lakes
Okanagan - Skaha
Cowichan Valley
Stikine
Gold Trail
Qualicum
Quesnel
Coast Mountains
Nicola - Similkameen
Arrow Lakes
Island North
Haida Gwaii
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Central Coast
Nisga'a
Island West
90
277
182
1,165
459
827
279
1,106
534
4,197
3,995
742
1,356
412
1,193
402
3,052
1,484
538
814
389
562
1,156
232
641
202
1,326
215
407
75
1,007
405
360
418
1,450
985
168
321
438
319
991
961
297
828
599
58
120
279
276
401
160
40
239
61
3,860
225
15
29
33
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
Years
Surveyed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
02
02
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
02
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
.
03
.
.
03
03
03
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
04
04
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
04
04
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
04
04
.
.
04
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
4.49
4.69
5.03
6.36
6.56
6.82
7.19
7.27
7.34
8.27
8.44
8.57
8.71
9.27
9.27
9.50
9.50
9.65
9.70
9.73
9.77
9.80
9.88
9.96
10.00
10.05
10.50
10.80
10.81
10.96
11.23
11.39
11.60
11.68
11.70
11.78
12.27
12.30
12.47
12.58
12.89
12.92
13.22
13.54
13.55
14.04
14.17
14.80
14.86
15.15
15.63
17.50
17.65
18.03
18.26
27.11
Average
Score
9.05
9.08
8.96
8.85
8.76
8.77
9.00
8.57
8.75
8.73
8.80
8.63
8.85
8.64
8.63
8.65
8.68
8.63
8.62
8.61
8.55
8.80
8.73
8.72
8.62
8.23
8.62
8.61
8.47
8.50
8.52
8.54
8.26
8.47
8.51
8.52
8.33
8.54
8.58
8.43
8.50
8.47
8.66
8.52
8.68
8.36
8.20
8.42
8.42
8.53
8.45
8.66
8.79
8.70
8.29
8.08
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 10.00 8.57
30
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.2.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Physical Well-being Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Physical Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
above 14.20 %
11.81 - 14.20 %
9.81 - 11.80 %
8.01 - 9.80 %
below 8.00 %
(9 districts)
(11 districts)
(14 districts)
(13 districts)
(9 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
Revelstoke to a high of 27% in Prince Rupert. This range
is larger than for any of the other EDI scales. The data table
shows that the five least vulnerable districts in the province
are Revelstoke, Kootenay-Columbia, Boundary, North
Vancouver and Rocky Mountain. Districts with the highest
proportion of vulnerable children are Arrow Lakes, Island
North, Haida Gwaii, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert.
Thirty-one of BC’s school districts (for which data is not
suppressed due to small population size) have more than
10% of children that are vulnerable on the physical scale.
The physical domain stands out for being the only EDI scale
on which the majority of districts endure vulnerability rates
that are above 10%.
Map 3.2.2: Average Score on the Physical Well-being Scale
Physical Well-being
Average Score
above 8.73
8.64 - 8.73
8.55 - 8.63
8.47 - 8.54
below 8.47
31

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
High rates of vulnerability on the physical domain stand out
relative to the high average score distribution reported across
the province, which ranges from a low of 8.08 in Prince
Rupert to 9.08 in Kootenay-Columbia. This distribution of
average scores is the highest of any of the EDI scales. The
one percentage point difference between Prince Rupert and
Kootenay-Columbia is also the smallest of any scale.
(yellow) of BC school districts.
Haida Gwaii, Island North and Arrow Lakes are all districts
that can be characterized as wide ranging in terms of their
relatively high average scores on physical development
matched by high levels of vulnerability.
The disjuncture between high average scores and high
vulnerability rates reveals that within school districts there
is more disparity between children in terms of their physical
development than there is for any other EDI scale. Although
some children receive very high average scores, which serve
to bring up the district average, many districts are also home
to a substantial proportion of children who fall below the
provincial vulnerability cut-off score of 7.12.
Collectively, we can assist young children to meet the
appropriate physical well-being markers by supporting
various programs that are designed to enhance physical
health in the early years.
Community Types
A
lberni, Greater Victoria and Fraser-Cascade are
average districts in the province, given the mid-range
(yellow) average EDI scores and mid-range (yellow)
vulnerability rates for physical development that they report.
High average scores and low vulnerability rates render
districts like Revelstoke, Kootenay-Columbia, Boundary,
North Vancouver, Campbell River and Vernon relatively
low challenge communities when it comes to physical
development.
Families and communities that wish to enhance
physical development can:
Create lots of outdoor play areas, both
formal and informal.
Develop a variety of accessible
recreation programs.
Offer recreation opportunities in both
urban and rural settings.
Limit the amount of time spent with TV
and video games.
Develop food security programs in
places that are friendly to children and
families.
Think about community safety. Are
there places for children to play that are
free of traffic, well lit and within view
of their home?
Go outside! Ride your bike, or take a
walk.
Conversely, low average scores on the physical domain and
high rates of developmental delay in Prince Rupert,
Vancouver, Nicola-Similkameen, Quesnel and Qualicum
depict districts that are relatively high challenge communities
vis-à-vis physical development.
The Gulf Islands and Howe Sound districts come closest to
approximating the buffered ideal type: they are communities
with low (dark red) average scores for physical development,
but report vulnerability rates that place them in the middle
32
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Healthy Choices: An Innovative Community Asset
N
utritionist Thara Vayali created Healthy
Choices, a program that teaches children
and youth about healthy lifestyles. Thara’s teaching
approach prioritizes creating a balanced and
enjoyable setting for young children in which they
learn about what she calls the three F’s: Food,
Fitness, and Fun. Her program fosters a learning
environment that allows for expression of innovative
ideas and creativity, while providing a balance of
physical activity and breaks. During the program,
children spend the morning learning about food
and nutrition, and playing games; in the afternoon
they are taught Ultimate — an energetic sport using
Frisbees®.
The Healthy Choices program was introduced as
a community asset in Greater Vancouver by a
combination of funds from BC Legacy 2010, the
Vancouver Parks Board, and Action Arts. 1,200
children in summer programs engaged in the
program in 2004.
For more information about Healthy Choices
contact:
Thara Vayali
Phone: 778.898.5399
Email: info@freshfoodschools.ca
www.freshfoodschools.ca
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
33

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.3 Social Competence
Social and Emotional Health
A
n environment that is inadequately stimulating,
socially or emotionally, in one’s early years will
adversely affect brain development, and lead to cognitive,
social and behavioural delays. Behavioural problems and
failure in school are associated with low levels of mental
well-being in early adulthood.
Research shows that secure attachment to a trusted caregiver,
with consistent caring, support and affection early in life is
a necessary ingredient for optimal child development
(Stevenson-Hinde and Verschueren 2002; Suomi 1999).
Effective parenting practices are some of the most important
protective factors associated with healthy early development.
The response to new situations demonstrated by a child as
s/he matures into a youth and then an adult has its roots in
the early relationships s/he experiences with the people
primarily responsible for his or her care as an infant and
toddler.
An infant develops her capability for emotional control and
a sense of attachment to caregivers before her first birthday.
Attachment signals the extent to which s/he trusts that a
caregiver will respond promptly and appropriately, thereby
providing a sense of security. Infants and toddlers require
this security to explore things and people in the environment.
Successful attempts at discovery and experimentation increase
the child’s self-confidence and encourage more exploration.
Social Competence
T
he Early Development Instrument assesses social
competence and emotional maturity separately. The
social competence scale measures behaviour in structured
environments such as the classroom. It focuses on children’s
cooperation and respect for others (both children and adults),
their ability to work within the school environment, socially
appropriate behaviour during school activities, self-control,
and self-confidence. The typical profile of a child who is
vulnerable on the social competence scale is one with regular
problems in maintaining self-control; showing respect for
adults; getting along with other children; accepting
Table 3.3.1: Social Competence
SD#
19
22
6
45
28
72
8
20
70
37
83
43
60
27
58
35
62
51
79
36
44
91
81
53
61
69
48
57
5
23
73
46
34
33
71
59
41
42
67
38
68
64
47
75
82
78
74
63
39
40
54
50
85
52
10
87
49
84
92
District Name
Revelstoke
Vernon
Rocky Mountain
West Vancouver
Quesnel
Campbell River
Kootenay Lake
Kootenay - Columbia
Alberni
Delta
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Coquitlam
Peace River North
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Nicola - Similkameen
Langley
Sooke
Boundary
Cowichan Valley
Surrey
North Vancouver
Nechako Lakes
Fort Nelson
Okanagan - Similkameen
Greater Victoria
Qualicum
Howe Sound
Prince George
Southeast Kootenay
Central Okanagan
Kamloops - Thompson
Sunshine Coast
Abbotsford
Chilliwack
Comox Valley
Peace River South
Burnaby
Maple Ridge
Okanagan - Skaha
Richmond
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Gulf Islands
Powell River
Mission
Coast Mountains
Fraser - Cascade
Gold Trail
Saanich
Vancouver
New Westminster
Bulkley Valley
Haida Gwaii
Island North
Prince Rupert
Arrow Lakes
Stikine
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
90
534
459
279
276
827
742
277
641
1,106
402
3,995
407
418
160
1,156
562
182
599
4,197
1,165
297
75
389
1,326
279
360
991
1,193
1,450
1,007
232
3,052
814
538
319
1,484
985
828
1,356
961
202
321
438
401
215
120
412
3,860
405
168
61
239
225
40
58
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
02
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
02
.
.
.
02
02
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
.
03
03
.
03
.
03 04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
.
03
03
03
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03 04
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
.
03
03
.
.
03
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
Average
Score
4.49 8.96
4.52 8.53
5.03 8.55
5.04 8.53
5.09 8.47
5.73 8.67
6.39 8.47
6.50 8.85
6.56 8.57
6.69 8.32
6.72 8.52
6.85 8.53
6.88 8.14
7.26 8.23
7.50 7.91
7.57 8.45
7.66 8.25
7.78 8.56
7.86 8.59
7.96 8.38
8.00 8.33
8.08 8.58
8.22 7.70
8.23 8.28
8.24 8.39
8.24 8.22
8.40 7.61
8.88 8.27
9.03 8.37
9.03 8.21
9.04 8.14
9.96 8.33
10.07 8.27
10.23 8.14
10.45 8.18
11.01 8.35
11.01 8.06
11.15 8.15
11.37 8.04
11.45 8.10
11.56 8.10
11.62 8.23
11.67 8.15
12.18 8.08
12.25 8.23
12.26 8.10
12.61 7.92
12.86 8.10
12.88 7.98
12.90 8.03
13.41 7.97
14.75 7.93
15.19 8.23
15.63 7.56
17.50 8.29
21.05 7.38
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 10.00 8.19
34
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.3.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Social Competence Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Social Competence
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
above 12.26 %
10.46 - 12.26 %
8.11 - 10.45 %
6.81 - 8.10 %
below 6.80 %
(10 districts)
(11 districts)
(13 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
responsibility for their own actions; following rules and
class routines; and adjusting to change. The child often
suffers low self-confidence and is not usually able to work
independently.
Map 3.3.1 summarizes the rate of social vulnerability reported
for kindergarten children across the province. The range of
social vulnerability levels across BC school districts is
narrower than the range for physical vulnerability. Revelstoke
again has the lowest level of socially vulnerable children
(4.5%), while Stikine has the highest at 21%. The average
score distribution starts at a low of 7.38 and rises to a high
of 8.96. The endpoints on the continuum are again Stikine
and Revelstoke.
Map 3.3.2: Average Score on the Social Competence Scale
Social Competence
Average Score
above 8.51
8.30 - 8.51
8.20 - 8.29
8.09 - 8.19
below 8.09
35

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
Thirty-two of the 56 school districts (for which data is not
suppressed due to small population size) report that less
than 10% of children are vulnerable on the social competence
scale.
The five least vulnerable districts are: Revelstoke, Vernon,
Rocky Mountain, West Vancouver and Quesnel.
Vulnerability rates are highest in: Haida Gwaii, Island
North, Prince Rupert, Arrow Lakes and Stikine.
Community Types
O
kanagan-Similkameen, Central Okanagan, Qualicum,
Abbotsford and Prince George are all average districts.
They report average EDI scores that are in the mid-range
(yellow) for the province along with mid-range (yellow)
levels of vulnerability.
Low challenge communities like Revelstoke, Vernon, Rocky
Mountain, West Vancouver and Campbell River all report
high average scores and low vulnerability rates in terms of
social development.
High challenge districts in which there are relatively low
average scores on the social competence scale and high
vulnerability rates include Stikine, Prince Rupert, the Bulkley
Valley, New Westminster and Gold Trail.
Families and communities that wish to enhance
social development can pursue a range of strategies.
They can:
Develop programs where children have
a chance to practice following rules and
listening to adults.
Enrol children in preschool or quality
child care.
Make government funding for quality
child care a prominent issue in local
election campaigns.
Help children play games with peers
that involve taking turns.
Develop a daily routine for children
that includes chores, play, as well as
quiet time.
Offer parent education programs that
emphasize social and emotional
development.
Talk to children in your neighbourhood.
Help them learn to interact with adults
other than their parents.
Nicola-Similkameen and Peace River North represent
buffered communities with low average scores for social
development that do not translate into high rates of social
vulnerability.
Peace River South exemplifies the wide range community
type. The district enjoys relatively high average scores for
social development, but also reports a high rate of
vulnerability.
36
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

37
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.4 Emotional Maturity
Emotional Maturity
W
hile the social competence scale focuses on
behaviour in the structured environment of the
classroom, the EDI’s emotional maturity scale measures
children’s behaviour in less formal environments such as
the playground. It pays particular attention to children’s
pro-social behaviour such as helping, tolerance and an ability
to demonstrate empathy for others, in contrast to antisocial
aggressive behaviour, anxiety, hyperactivity, inattention,
and impulsiveness.
The typical profile of a child who is vulnerable on the
emotional maturity scale is one with regular problems
managing aggressive behaviour, who is prone to disobedience,
and/or easily distractible, inattentive, and impulsive; s/he is
usually unable to show helping behaviour towards other
children, and is sometimes upset when left by the caregiver.
The range of emotional vulnerability rates across BC school
districts is narrower than for any other EDI scale, meaning
that there is more parity between school districts in respect
of emotional vulnerability than for any other developmental
domain. As Map 3.4.1 shows, Quesnel has the lowest rate
at 4%, and Island North the highest at 17%.
Thirty-four districts (for which data is not suppressed) report
that less than 10% of local kindergarten children are
vulnerable on the emotional maturity scale. The five districts
reporting the lowest vulnerability levels are: Quesnel,
Kootenay-Columbia, Delta, Saanich and Revelstoke. The
highest vulnerability rates are reported in: Island North,
Stikine, Haida Gwaii, Fort Nelson and Nanaimo-Ladysmith.
The average score distribution ranges from 7.35 in Haida
Gwaii to 8.71 in Revelstoke.
Table 3.4.1: Emotional Maturity
SD#
28
20
37
63
19
46
6
72
60
22
44
35
36
43
64
8
51
42
41
73
74
57
27
82
70
45
62
79
38
34
53
91
5
48
10
61
83
69
71
23
33
47
40
78
75
67
54
58
52
59
39
68
81
50
87
85
49
84
92
District Name
Quesnel
Kootenay - Columbia
Delta
Saanich
Revelstoke
Sunshine Coast
Rocky Mountain
Campbell River
Peace River North
Vernon
North Vancouver
Langley
Surrey
Coquitlam
Gulf Islands
Kootenay Lake
Boundary
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Burnaby
Kamloops - Thompson
Gold Trail
Prince George
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Coast Mountains
Alberni
West Vancouver
Sooke
Cowichan Valley
Richmond
Abbotsford
Okanagan - Similkameen
Nechako Lakes
Southeast Kootenay
Howe Sound
Arrow Lakes
Greater Victoria
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Qualicum
Comox Valley
Central Okanagan
Chilliwack
Powell River
New Westminster
Fraser - Cascade
Mission
Okanagan - Skaha
Bulkley Valley
Nicola - Similkameen
Prince Rupert
Peace River South
Vancouver
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Fort Nelson
Haida Gwaii
Stikine
Island North
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
276
277
1,106
412
90
232
459
827
407
534
1,165
1,156
4,197
3,995
202
742
182
985
1,484
1,007
120
991
418
401
641
279
562
599
1,356
3,052
389
297
1,193
360
40
1,326
402
279
538
1450
814
321
405
215
438
828
168
160
225
319
3,860
961
75
61
58
239
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
02
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03 04
03 04
03
.
03
03
03
.
.
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
.
03
.
03
.
03
.
03 04
03
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
.
04
04
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
4.17
5.51
5.57
5.60
5.62
6.11
6.13
6.30
6.65
6.70
7.24
7.26
7.40
7.53
7.65
7.72
7.78
8.13
8.21
8.48
8.55
8.66
8.77
8.84
8.86
8.99
9.11
9.26
9.34
9.46
9.51
9.52
9.69
9.78
10.00
10.08
10.20
10.78
10.92
10.96
11.07
11.36
11.41
11.43
11.45
11.80
11.80
12.58
13.39
13.48
14.18
15.01
15.07
15.52
15.79
16.60
Average
Score
8.25
8.63
8.26
8.17
8.71
8.23
7.85
8.34
8.21
8.23
8.11
8.23
8.20
8.18
7.97
7.99
8.49
8.04
8.04
8.04
7.76
8.11
7.77
8.12
8.15
7.99
8.00
8.35
8.01
8.07
7.84
8.46
8.01
8.11
8.03
8.01
8.09
7.95
7.93
7.96
7.91
7.93
7.86
8.21
7.80
7.70
7.92
7.69
7.56
7.99
7.64
7.71
7.45
7.35
7.53
7.71
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 10.00 8.02
38
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.4.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Emotional Maturity Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Emotional Maturity
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
above 11.45 %
9.79 - 11.45 %
8.49 - 9.78 %
6.81 - 8.48 %
below 6.80 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(14 districts)
(10 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
Community Types
Map 3.4.2: Average Score on the Emotional Maturity Scale
W
est Vancouver, Sooke, Richmond and Southeast
Kootenay fall into the category of average districts
that report mid-range vulnerability levels and mid-range
average scores. Quesnel, Kootenay-Columbia, Delta,
Revelstoke, Sunshine Coast, Campbell River and Vernon
are among a relatively long list of low challenge districts
with respect to average emotional maturity scores and
vulnerability rates.
Emotional Maturity
Average Score
above 8.22
8.05 - 8.22
7.98 - 8.04
7.82 - 7.97
below 7.82
39

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
High challenge districts include Island North, Stikine, Haida
Gwaii, Fort Nelson, Nanaimo-Ladysmith, Vancouver, Prince
Rupert, Nicola-Similkameen, and Okanagan-Skaha.
The Rocky Mountain district and the Gulf Islands are two
communities that manage to buffer low average scores on
the emotional scale from translating into high vulnerability
rates.
North Okanagan-Shuswap and Fraser-Cascade are wide
ranging districts with high vulnerability rates occurring in
conjunction with high average scores.
Families and communities that wish to enhance
emotional development can:
Create environments where children
are able to participate safely in free,
imaginative, play.
Talk about feelings and encourage
children to do the same.
Create opportunities for children to play
together in an unstructured, but
supervised, environment.
Offer parent education programs that
emphasize social and emotional
development.
Make government funding for quality
child care a prominent issue in local
election campaigns.
Limit children’s access to negative,
scary or violent media.
40
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Roots of Empathy: An Innovative Community Asset
T
he Roots of Empathy program is an innovative
classroom-based parenting program that aims
to reduce aggression among students by fostering
their empathy and emotional literacy. Empathy is
one of the characteristics of successful learners,
since thriving in school often depends upon the
ability to communicate with others and to view
oneself and the world from the perspective of
others.
The program invites a neighbourhood infant and
parent to visit a classroom once a month for the
full school year. A certified Roots of Empathy
Instructor assists the parent to coach students to
observe the baby's development, celebrate
milestones, interact with the baby and learn about
an infant's needs and unique temperament.
The purpose of the program is to promote
understanding of human development, diversity,
and individual uniqueness. Research suggests that
fostering this understanding is important because
the early school-aged period is marked by important
social and emotional changes. Cognitively, children
develop the ability to reason, take the perspective
of others, and develop learning and problem-solving
strategies that they carry with them throughout
their lives (Eccles, 1999). Simultaneously, children
shape their personal identities in response to the
broad range of peer interaction to which elementary
school introduces them.
The emotional literacy taught by the Roots of
Empathy program lays the foundation for more
caring classrooms. When children understand how
others feel, they are less likely to hurt each other
through bullying, exclusion, and violence. They
even begin to learn to challenge cruelty and injustice
through activities that focus on social inclusion
and allow the children to practice consensus
building.
There are currently 280 Roots of Empathy programs
in BC reaching 7,000 children. For more
information about Roots of Empathy contact:
Sandra Weeks, Communications Coordinator
Phone: 416-204-7880
Fax: 416-944-9295
Email: sweeks@rootsofempathy.org
www.rootsofempathy.org
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
41

Early Development Instrument
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.5 Language and Cognitive Development
Early Learning and Communication Skills
B
etween birth and age six, children are stimulated
through conversation, reading, play and other
activities, to develop the language and cognitive skills they
require to succeed when they enter school. Children who
are delayed in these skills risk long-term negative outcomes,
since school failure affects future well-being and job market
success (Keating and Hertzman 1999; Heckman and Lochner
2000).
Language and Cognitive Development
T
he Early Development Instrument measures language
and cognitive development separately from
communications skills and general knowledge. The former
scale measures children’s interest in books, reading, languagerelated
activities (rhyming, group reading), literacy skills
(letter recognition, reading and writing simple words), and
interest in simple math-related activities (recognizing and
comparing numbers, counting, sorting, etc.).
The typical profile of a child who is vulnerable on the
language and cognitive scale is one with problems in basic
reading, writing and numeracy. S/he is unable to read and
write simple words or attach sounds to letters, and s/he often
does not want to try. S/he has difficulty remembering things,
counting to 20, recognizing and comparing numbers, and
generally is not inclined to engage in activities that focus
on numbers.
Language and cognitive vulnerability rates at the school
district level range from a low of 2.5% in Gold Trail to over
24.5% in Haida Gwaii (see Map 3.5.1).
Vulnerability rates on this scale are less than 10% in 34 of
the 56 districts in BC (for which data is not suppressed due
to small population size).
Regions with the lowest levels of language and cognitive
vulnerability include Gold Trail, West Vancouver, Kootenay-
Columbia, Rocky Mountain and Kootenay Lake. Regions
Table 3.5.1: Language and Cognitive Development
SD#
74
45
20
6
8
44
5
69
72
91
35
43
53
83
81
22
67
27
42
19
38
37
63
61
79
62
46
64
28
59
73
57
40
23
60
36
34
87
51
71
33
54
48
41
68
58
75
39
82
78
70
10
52
85
47
50
49
84
92
District Name
Gold Trail
West Vancouver
Kootenay - Columbia
Rocky Mountain
Kootenay Lake
North Vancouver
Southeast Kootenay
Qualicum
Campbell River
Nechako Lakes
Langley
Coquitlam
Okanagan - Similkameen
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Fort Nelson
Vernon
Okanagan - Skaha
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Revelstoke
Richmond
Delta
Saanich
Greater Victoria
Cowichan Valley
Sooke
Sunshine Coast
Gulf Islands
Quesnel
Peace River South
Kamloops - Thompson
Prince George
New Westminster
Central Okanagan
Peace River North
Surrey
Abbotsford
Stikine
Boundary
Comox Valley
Chilliwack
Bulkley Valley
Howe Sound
Burnaby
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Nicola - Similkameen
Mission
Vancouver
Coast Mountains
Fraser - Cascade
Alberni
Arrow Lakes
Prince Rupert
Island North
Powell River
Haida Gwaii
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
120
279
277
459
742
1,165
1,193
279
827
297
1,156
3,995
389
402
75
534
828
418
985
90
1,356
1,106
412
1,326
599
562
232
202
276
319
1,007
991
405
1,450
407
4,197
3,052
58
182
538
814
168
360
1,484
961
160
438
3,860
401
215
641
40
225
239
321
61
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02 03
02
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02 03
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03 04
03
03
.
.
.
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
.
03 04
03
03
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
04
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
04
04
.
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
Average
Score
2.50 8.12
3.26 9.02
3.30 8.93
3.95 8.46
4.09 8.54
4.83 8.44
5.65 8.42
5.73 8.32
5.80 8.33
5.86 8.42
6.11 8.45
6.25 8.48
6.43 8.26
6.47 8.31
6.85 8.60
7.36 8.18
7.50 8.33
7.71 8.28
7.86 8.49
7.87 8.81
7.90 8.41
7.92 8.12
8.03 8.09
8.25 8.30
8.38 8.27
8.56 8.22
9.05 8.42
9.09 8.03
9.09 7.78
9.18 8.40
9.35 8.12
9.48 8.26
9.50 8.05
9.99 8.01
10.10 7.94
10.26 8.16
10.34 8.13
10.53 7.44
10.56 8.38
11.02 7.91
11.35 8.20
11.59 7.80
11.98 7.81
12.59 7.89
13.46 7.84
13.75 8.18
13.89 7.64
13.89 7.70
13.97 8.03
14.08 7.79
14.78 7.62
15.00 8.62
15.11 7.73
15.68 7.67
16.40 7.64
24.59 7.69
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 10.00 8.15
42
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.5.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Language and Cognitive Development Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Language and Cognitive Development
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
above 12.59 %
9.51 - 12.59 %
7.93 - 9.50 %
6.25 - 7.92 %
below 6.25 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(12 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
with the highest vulnerability are Arrow Lakes, Prince
Rupert, Island North, Powell River and Haida Gwaii.
The average score distribution is between 7.44 in Stikine,
and 9.02 in West Vancouver, a difference of 1.58. This
range in average scores reveals considerable district-level
differences between children’s development in the
fundamental ABC’s of school readiness.
Map 3.5.2: Average Score on the Language and Cognitive
Development Scale
Language and
Cognitive
Development
Average Score
above 8.44
8.31 - 8.44
8.13 - 8.30
7.82 - 8.12
below 7.82
43

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
Community Types
V
ictoria, Sooke, Cowichan Valley and Prince George
are average communities with district average EDI
scores and vulnerability rates in the middle of the provincial
range.
West Vancouver, Kootenay-Columbia, Rocky Mountain,
Kootenay Lake, and Langley are among the group of districts
that have high average scores and low vulnerability rates
on this scale. They are therefore appropriately categorized
as low challenge communities in regards to EDI scores.
Haida Gwaii, Powell River, Island North, Prince Rupert,
Alberni and Fraser-Cascade are among the group of high
challenge districts given their low average scores and high
vulnerability rates.
Gold Trail and Delta are considered buffered communities
given their higher average scores and low vulnerability rates.
Arrow Lakes and Boundary are classified as wide ranging
districts with high vulnerability rates and high average
scores.
Families and communities wanting to enhance
language and cognitive development can:
Make early literacy initiatives like
Mother Goose a priority in your
community.
Read to your child!
Play games with numbers as part of
everyday life.
Partner with your library in developing
preschool programs.
Develop family initiatives that support
literacy development for both parents
and children.
Enrol your child in preschool or quality
child care.
Make government funding for quality
child care a prominent issue in local
election campaigns.
Create a used book exchange for
children’s stories.
Partner with your school district in
sharing early literacy resources.
44
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

45
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.6 Communication and General Knowledge
Communication and General Knowledge
T
he communications skills and general knowledge scale
of the EDI measures children’s ability to clearly
communicate one’s own needs and understand others in
English, active participation in storytelling, and interest in
general knowledge about the world. Since this scale
prioritizes English language skills, communities that have
a higher proportion of children for whom English is a second
language or dialect often have higher levels of vulnerability.
The typical profile of a child vulnerable on the communication
skills and general knowledge scale is one with poor
communication and articulation skills; limited command of
English; who has difficulties in talking to others,
understanding and being understood; and demonstrates
limited age-appropriate general knowledge.
Vulnerability rates on this EDI scale range from a low of
nearly 0% in the Sunshine Coast to over 22% in Prince
Rupert (Map 3.6.1).
It is notable that 46 of the 56 districts report vulnerability
levels below 10% on this EDI scale (Table 3.6.1). More
school districts fall below the 10% rate in terms of
communication and general knowledge than in respect of
any other EDI scale. The implication is that vulnerability
on this scale is concentrated in a relatively small number of
areas in the province, primarily in the populous Lower
Mainland region.
The Sunshine Coast, Fort Nelson, Boundary, Qualicum and
Vernon districts enjoy the lowest levels of vulnerability.
Burnaby, New Westminster, Arrow Lakes, Vancouver and
Prince Rupert districts report the largest proportion of
children vulnerable with respect to communication and
general knowledge.
The distribution of average scores across school districts
ranges from 6.29 in Prince Rupert to 8.36 in Kootenay-
Columbia (Table 3.6.1). This provincial distribution is lower
than for any other EDI scale, while the range is the greatest.
The pattern of relatively low average scores coupled with
a wide range indicates both significant disparity in English
Table 3.6.1: Communication and General Knowledge
SD#
46
81
51
69
22
6
20
72
5
70
8
35
62
44
91
28
73
45
71
83
33
42
60
82
19
43
67
23
79
63
57
64
61
53
54
68
37
58
87
59
85
74
75
27
47
48
36
78
34
38
50
41
40
10
39
52
49
84
92
District Name
Sunshine Coast
Fort Nelson
Boundary
Qualicum
Vernon
Rocky Mountain
Kootenay - Columbia
Campbell River
Southeast Kootenay
Alberni
Kootenay Lake
Langley
Sooke
North Vancouver
Nechako Lakes
Quesnel
Kamloops - Thompson
West Vancouver
Comox Valley
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Chilliwack
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Peace River North
Coast Mountains
Revelstoke
Coquitlam
Okanagan - Skaha
Central Okanagan
Cowichan Valley
Saanich
Prince George
Gulf Islands
Greater Victoria
Okanagan - Similkameen
Bulkley Valley
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Delta
Nicola - Similkameen
Stikine
Peace River South
Island North
Gold Trail
Mission
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Powell River
Howe Sound
Surrey
Fraser - Cascade
Abbotsford
Richmond
Haida Gwaii
Burnaby
New Westminster
Arrow Lakes
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
232
75
182
279
534
459
277
827
1,193
641
742
1,156
562
1,165
297
276
1,007
279
538
402
814
985
407
401
90
3,995
828
1,450
599
412
991
202
1,326
389
168
961
1,106
160
58
319
239
120
438
418
321
360
4,197
215
3,052
1,356
61
1,484
405
40
3,860
225
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
03 04
02 03 04
02 03 .
02 03
. 03
. 03
. 03
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
03
03
.
.
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
.
04
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
Average
Score
0.43 8.18
2.74 7.74
2.78 8.24
2.87 7.53
3.20 7.77
3.72 8.01
3.99 8.36
4.02 7.87
4.21 8.16
4.21 7.84
4.22 7.85
4.59 7.77
4.63 7.98
4.99 7.90
5.05 8.25
5.09 7.48
5.17 7.43
5.42 8.31
5.42 7.59
5.72 7.91
5.92 7.71
6.09 7.62
6.39 7.60
6.73 7.52
6.74 8.32
6.87 7.79
6.88 7.67
6.97 7.53
7.02 7.66
7.04 7.52
7.07 7.57
7.07 7.10
7.32 7.73
7.46 7.42
7.93 7.26
8.46 7.40
8.59 7.34
8.75 7.17
8.77 7.23
8.78 7.01
8.82 7.85
9.17 6.59
9.20 7.42
9.20 7.53
9.46 7.40
9.72 7.18
10.25 7.49
10.28 7.52
11.28 7.57
12.06 7.38
13.11 7.71
14.17 7.18
14.89 7.18
15.00 7.30
22.04 6.54
22.22 6.29
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 10.00 7.46
46
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.6.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on the Communication and General Knowledge Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Communication and General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
above 9.72 %
7.94 - 9.72 %
6.10 - 7.93 %
4.59 - 6.09 %
below 4.59 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(10 districts)
(11 districts)
(13 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
communication skills across districts, and delayed
development of these same skills in some BC communities.
Map 3.6.2: Average Score on the Communication and General
Knowledge Scale
Community Types
P
eace River North, Okanagan-Skaha, Central Okanagan,
Cowichan Valley and Prince George are all mid-range
in terms of both the average EDI scores that children received
for this scale, and the proportion of children in the districts
who are vulnerable.
Communication and
General Knowledge
Average Score
above 7.89
7.70 - 7.89
7.53 - 7.69
7.33 - 7.52
below 7.33
47

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
Sunshine Coast, Fort Nelson, Boundary and Rocky Mountain
are among the districts that report low challenge EDI results.
Most Lower Mainland communities are located in high
challenge school districts, as are Arrow Lakes and Prince
Rupert.
Kamloops-Thompson and Quesnel are two buffered districts
with low average scores on the general knowledge scale,
but also low levels of vulnerability.
Island North and Haida Gwaii are wide ranging communities
that report high average scores despite high vulnerability
levels.
Families and communities that want to enhance
communication skills and general knowledge
development among their children can consider
the following strategies:
Talk to your child. Ordinary activities
are always a source of conversation.
Turn off the TV and have conversations
with children about their experiences
that day.
Tell stories to your child and encourage
them to do the same.
Develop parent education programs that
emphasize the importance of
communication.
Support ESL programs that focus on
learning and improving English skills
among children for whom it is a second
language.
Make government funding for quality
child care a prominent issue in local
election campaigns.
Develop “grandbuddy” programs. Have
elders tell children about their
experiences of growing up.
48
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

The High/Scope Educational Approach to Preschool: An Innovative Community Asset
C
ommunities that Care (CTC) Squamish is
a community mobilization program that aims
to prevent five major adolescent health and
behaviour problems: teen pregnancy, drug and
alcohol misuse, violence, delinquency and school
drop out. Following an assessment of the
community’s population-level risks, protective
factors, and resources, CTC identified High/Scope
as a way to promote positive early childhood
development for children in Squamish.
In Feburary 2003, teachers in Squamish, Whistler,
and Mt. Currie began their training as Lead Teachers
in the High/Scope Approach. Twenty-two teachers
graduated from the program by July 2004 and are
now preparing to meet certification standards.
Their goal is to see classrooms accredited by the
fall of 2005.
Evaluation studies have consistently demonstrated
that children who participate in the High/Scope
Educational Approach to preschool are significantly
more successful later in life in terms of educational
performance, social responsibility, economic status,
and emotional maturity (Weikart 1998). Some of
the key features of the program include an approach
to room arrangement, adult-child interaction and
daily routines that support active learning. A
standardized tool is used to measure each child’s
progress and to assist teachers in program planning.
Home visits, parent education, and formal parent
conferences help parents extend preschool learning
into the home.
In Squamish, the High/Scope program is
supplemented by the Family and Child Literacy
program (FACES). Teachers partner with
professionals as needed. The language-based
approach employed by High/Scope promotes
literacy and school readiness. Much of the program
consists of child-directed activities, which foster
independence, creativity, and development of social
skills.
In the near term, it is expected that the EDI scores
for children participating in High/Scope sites will
improve by the fall of 2006. Existing EDI results
provide a baseline for the High/Scope sites to
monitor progress toward this goal. In 2000, 12%
of the children in the Squamish-Howe Sound school
district area were considered vulnerable on the
language and cognitive development scale. By
2004, EDI results suggest that the rate had dropped
to 7%. Residents familiar with the High/Scope
sites are keen to learn whether the program will
contribute to a further reduction in the next years.
CTC is an emerging example of one of several
ways that the Greater Squamish area has been able
to turn community connectivity into community
assets to build new programs that support healthy
early childhood development. High/Scope has
been made possible by support and funding from
the Children First Initiative, United Way of the
Lower Mainland, Capilano College, Dandelion
Daycare Society, Sea to Sky Community Services
Society, Mt. Currie Band, Squamish Rotary, Owen
Carney, Westmana Developments, Newport
Galleries and the Squamish Nation. For more
information contact:
Christine Buttkus, Project Coordinator, CTC
Phone: 604-218-0764
Email: christine_buttkus@telus.net
Suzie Soman, High/Scope Steering Committee
Member
Phone: 604-892-5796
Julia Black, Whistler Children’s Centre
Phone: 604-932-1119
Jessica Frank, Pqusnalhcw Child Care Centre
Phone: 604-894-6656
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
49

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
3.7 Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
T
he last three maps of this chapter summarize the share
of children in each district who are vulnerable on one
or more scales of the EDI. The rate of vulnerability on at
least one scale varies across school districts from a low of
13% in Kootenay-Columbia to a high of almost 40% in
Prince Rupert (see Table 3.7.1). This range represents a
three-fold difference between school districts. The range
grows to a nine-fold difference when we compare rates
across districts for children who are vulnerable on at least
three EDI scales (see Table 3.7.2).
As communities struggle to minimize vulnerability rates in
their own neighbourhoods, the wide range in vulnerability
levels between districts signals that it will be important to
retain a pan-BC focus that prioritizes reducing the extent of
interdistrict disparity in developmental vulnerability levels.
It is striking that low rates of vulnerability on at least one
scale are scattered in regions across the province: the North,
Vancouver Island, the Kootenays, the Okanagan and the
Lower Mainland. The districts that report the five lowest
vulnerability rates are Kootenay-Columbia, West Vancouver,
Rocky Mountain, Revelstoke and Campbell River.
Conversely, Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Island North, Stikine
and Burnaby are the five school districts with the highest
levels of vulnerability on one or more EDI scales.
Table 3.7.1: Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
SD#
20
45
6
19
72
22
8
44
51
43
83
35
5
37
62
42
61
73
60
79
64
53
91
70
33
36
34
63
46
28
71
57
54
27
23
10
74
69
67
78
38
59
50
58
75
48
68
40
81
82
47
41
87
85
39
52
49
84
92
District Name
Kootenay - Columbia
West Vancouver
Rocky Mountain
Revelstoke
Campbell River
Vernon
Kootenay Lake
North Vancouver
Boundary
Coquitlam
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Langley
Southeast Kootenay
Delta
Sooke
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Greater Victoria
Kamloops - Thompson
Peace River North
Cowichan Valley
Gulf Islands
Okanagan - Similkameen
Nechako Lakes
Alberni
Chilliwack
Surrey
Abbotsford
Saanich
Sunshine Coast
Quesnel
Comox Valley
Prince George
Bulkley Valley
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Central Okanagan
Arrow Lakes
Gold Trail
Qualicum
Okanagan - Skaha
Fraser - Cascade
Richmond
Peace River South
Haida Gwaii
Nicola - Similkameen
Mission
Howe Sound
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
New Westminster
Fort Nelson
Coast Mountains
Powell River
Burnaby
Stikine
Island North
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
277
279
459
90
827
534
742
1,165
182
3,995
402
1,156
1,193
1,106
562
985
1,326
1,007
407
599
202
389
297
641
814
4,197
3,052
412
232
276
538
991
168
418
1,450
40
120
279
828
215
1,356
319
61
160
438
360
961
405
75
401
321
1,484
58
239
3,860
225
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
02
02
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
02 03
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
03
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
.
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
.
03
03
03
03 04
03
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
04
.
04
.
04
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
04
.
04
.
04
04
04
04
Percent
Vulnerable
13.36
14.34
14.60
15.56
16.81
17.23
18.06
18.28
18.68
18.87
18.91
18.94
19.87
19.98
20.64
22.13
22.47
22.54
22.60
22.70
22.77
22.88
22.90
23.24
23.46
23.49
23.49
23.54
23.71
23.91
23.98
24.12
24.40
24.40
24.55
25.00
25.00
25.09
25.12
26.51
26.70
27.59
27.87
28.13
28.31
28.61
28.93
29.14
29.33
29.43
29.60
29.99
32.76
33.47
37.95
39.56
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
British Columbia 24.50
50
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.7.1: Percent of Children Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
Percent Vulnerable
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
above 28.61 %
24.41 - 28.61 %
22.71 - 24.40 %
18.88 - 22.70 %
below 18.87 %
(10 districts)
(12 districts)
(14 districts)
(10 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Sooke
Victoria
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early
Learning Partnership, UBC. Children under five population data
provided by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry of
Management Services, Government of British Columbia. These
population figures are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census undercounting.
51

Early Development Instrument Results
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI Results
When we turn our attention to vulnerability on three and
five scales, the top and bottom rankings change considerably
(see Tables 3.7.2). The lowest vulnerability rates are now
found on the Sunshine Coast, despite the fact that it was
ranked only 29th in terms of vulnerability on at least one
EDI scale. Thus, while this district is average by provincial
standards in terms of the proportion of local children who
endure some vulnerability, relatively few children in this
community experience multiple developmental barriers.
The story is even more dramatic for Fort Nelson, which is
near the bottom of the school district pack in terms of the
share of kids who experience vulnerability on one scale; but
is in the top five districts when it comes to those that are
home to the fewest children with multiple vulnerabilities.
Quesnel reflects a similar pattern when the focus is
exclusively on vulnerability on all five EDI scales.
While the Sunshine Coast, Fort Nelson, and Quesnel jump
considerably when our focus shifts from vulnerability on
one, to three, and to five scales, Kootenay-Columbia, Vernon,
Campbell River and Rocky Mountain are consistently in
the top ten on all three lists. Not only do these districts
enjoy relatively low levels of vulnerability, children who
are vulnerable in their neighbourhoods are relatively unlikely
to display multiple developmental challenges.
These consistently top-ten districts differ considerably from
districts like Revelstoke and West Vancouver. While they
have relatively few children who are vulnerable on one or
even three EDI scales, those who are vulnerable are more
likely to be on almost all the scales.
At the other end of the provincial spectrum, Prince Rupert
and Vancouver are consistently near the bottom of the school
district pack when it comes to the proportion of vulnerable
children. These districts are among the bottom five in terms
of vulnerability on at least one scale, three scales and all
five scales. Haida Gwaii, Arrow Lakes, Stikine and Powell
River also approximate this pattern. Not only do these
districts have a relatively high proportion of vulnerable
children according to the EDI, they also have a relatively
large share of children who are vulnerable at multiple,
potentially compounding, levels.
Table 3.7.2: Vulnerable on Three or More and All Five
EDI Scales
SD#
46
19
8
6
81
20
72
22
44
37
74
35
69
43
27
45
28
51
63
53
60
62
5
36
83
73
91
70
23
61
38
42
48
57
71
34
41
79
67
58
64
33
82
87
78
68
75
54
47
59
40
10
85
39
52
50
49
84
92
District Name
Sunshine Coast
Revelstoke
Kootenay Lake
Rocky Mountain
Fort Nelson
Kootenay - Columbia
Campbell River
Vernon
North Vancouver
Delta
Gold Trail
Langley
Qualicum
Coquitlam
Cariboo - Chilcotin
West Vancouver
Quesnel
Boundary
Saanich
Okanagan - Similkameen
Peace River North
Sooke
Southeast Kootenay
Surrey
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Kamloops / Thompson
Nechako Lakes
Alberni
Central Okanagan
Greater Victoria
Richmond
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Howe Sound
Prince George
Comox Valley
Abbotsford
Burnaby
Cowichan Valley
Okanagan - Skaha
Nicola - Similkameen
Gulf Islands
Chilliwack
Coast Mountains
Stikine
Fraser - Cascade
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Mission
Bulkley Valley
Powell River
Peace River South
New Westminster
Arrow Lakes
Island North
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Haida Gwaii
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga’a
EDI Children
Surveyed (n)
232
90
742
459
75
277
827
534
1,165
1,106
120
1,156
279
3,995
418
279
276
182
412
389
407
562
1,193
4,197
402
1,007
297
641
1,450
1,326
1,356
985
360
991
538
3,052
1,484
599
828
160
202
814
401
58
215
961
438
168
321
319
405
40
239
3,860
225
61
15
33
29
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
01
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02 03
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
02
02
.
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
02
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDI Results
Years
Surveyed
03
.
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03 04
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
.
.
.
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
03
03
.
03
03
03
.
03
.
.
03
.
04
04
.
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
04
.
04
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
04
.
.
04
.
.
.
04
04
.
.
04
04
.
04
2.16
2.22
2.43
2.61
2.67
2.89
3.26
3.37
3.69
4.07
4.17
4.24
4.30
4.53
4.55
4.66
4.71
4.95
5.10
5.14
5.16
5.16
5.36
5.43
5.47
5.56
5.72
5.77
6.28
6.33
6.34
6.40
6.65
6.66
6.69
6.72
6.74
6.84
6.88
6.88
6.93
7.00
7.48
8.62
8.84
8.84
8.90
8.93
9.03
9.09
9.14
12.50
12.55
14.53
16.00
. 18.03
. 04
. 04
. . . 04
British Columbia 6.45
Percent Percent
Vulnerable, Vulnerable,
3 or More All 5 Scales
0.00
2.22
0.54
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.19
0.52
0.72
1.67
0.61
0.36
1.08
0.96
1.43
0.00
0.55
0.24
1.03
0.98
1.07
0.84
0.88
1.24
0.79
1.01
0.31
1.38
1.36
0.81
1.02
1.39
0.81
0.74
1.25
0.81
1.84
1.57
3.13
0.50
1.35
1.50
5.17
1.86
2.08
0.91
3.57
2.18
1.25
1.73
5.00
0.84
3.11
4.89
4.92
suppressed
suppressed
suppressed
1.22
52
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 3.7.2: Percent of Children Vulnerable on Three or More EDI Scales
Vulnerable on Three or More EDI Scales
Percent Vulnerable
above 8.84 %
6.67 - 8.84 %
5.17 - 6.66 %
4.18 - 5.16 %
below 4.18 %
(10 districts)
(12 districts)
(12 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004,
Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
Children under five population data provided
by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry
of Management Services, Government of
British Columbia. These population figures
are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census
undercounting.
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Gold
Trail
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Central
Okanagan
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(59 School districts)
Vernon
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
CHAPTER THREE - Early Development Instrument Results
Map 3.7.3: Percent of Children Vulnerable on all Five EDI Scales
(59 School districts)
Vulnerable on All Five EDI Scales
Percent Vulnerable
above 1.86 %
1.26 - 1.86 %
0.85 - 1.25 %
0.54 - 0.84 %
below 0.54 %
(10 districts)
(11 districts)
(12 districts)
(11 districts)
(12 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004,
Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
Children under five population data provided
by the Population Section, BC Stats, Ministry
of Management Services, Government of
British Columbia. These population figures
are based upon the 2001 Census of Canada,
and have been adjusted for census
undercounting.
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Prince
Rupert
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Stikine
Coast
Mountains
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
Bulkley
Valley
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Gold
Trail
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Mission
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
53

54
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

4
Chapter Four:
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic
Status and the Social Care Thesis
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
55

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
4.1 How to Interpret EDI - SES Maps
How to Interpret EDI - SES Maps
S
ocioeconomic status (SES) is used to describe the
social and economic characteristics of a given unit
of analysis: for example, a child’s family, neighbourhood,
school district or province. Some of the most common SES
variables include income, employment, education, ethnicity
and language.
Research confirms that it is important to pay close attention
to SES when looking at school readiness. For instance,
Hertzman et al. (2002, 3) observe that:
In Canada, inequalities in child development emerge
in a systematic fashion over the first five years of
life, according to well-recognized factors: family
income, parental education, parenting style,
neighbourhood safety and cohesion, neighbourhood
socioeconomic differences, and access to quality
child care and developmental opportunities. By
age 5, a ‘gradient’ in early child development
emerges, such that, as one goes from the families
with the lowest to highest incomes, least to most
parental education, and least to most nurturing and
interactive parenting style, the average quality of
early child experiences increases.
Until about ten years ago, research about the relationship
between SES and child development focused mainly on the
social and economic conditions of the family household in
which a child grows. Drawing on data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Willms (2002)
has quantified this relationship in Canada. The selection of
household social and economic conditions that he measures
generally accounts for less than 10% of the variation between
child outcomes, whether measured in terms of physical,
behavioural or cognitive development (pp. 99-100). Thus,
while the family SES gradient is important in understanding
early development, the data are clear that risks to healthy
child development are found across the entire socioeconomic
spectrum. Even though the rate of vulnerability increases
as one descends the socioeconomic ladder, the majority of
developmentally vulnerable children reside in Canada’s
much more numerous economically secure homes (Keating
and Hertzman 1999).
Following in the wake of groundbreaking work by Brooks-
Gunn and her colleagues in the US (for example 1993), as
well as a number of more recent Canadian studies (for
example Kohen et al. 2002; Boyle and Lipman 2002; Curtis
et al. 2004), The BC Atlas of Child Development focuses on
the socioeconomic status of neighbourhoods to explore what
role it plays in child development. This literature provides
considerable evidence that the geography of opportunity
has a significant statistical impact on a child’s development
irrespective of the SES of the child’s household. While
statistically significant, however, the neighbourhood effect
is typically reported to be modest, accounting for between
5 and 10% of the variance in child outcomes (Burton and
Jarrett 2000, 1119) or less (Kohen et al. 2002).
The methodologies used in existing studies also indicate
that family socioeconomic status is more strongly associated
to child development outcomes than neighbourhood status
(Burton and Jarrett 2000; Curtis et al. 2004). This finding
is not surprising since we would expect effects of
neighbourhood SES on child development to materialize
later than, and be mediated by, family social and economic
circumstances. The latter provide the primary environment
for infants and young children who have less exposure to
neighbourhoods than older children, adolescents and adults
(Klebanov et al. 1998, 1421). Research suggests that the
influence of neighbourhoods on individuals increases as
children age because peer relations and school settings join
parenting style and household resources as important
influences on developmental outcomes (for example Maggi
et al. 2004).
In the light of evidence showing that the social and economic
characteristics of a child’s family alone are not the major
determinants of vulnerability, and that the influence of
neighbourhood SES is weaker still, some readers may be
wondering what accounts for the large variation in
vulnerability rates across school districts that were reported
in the previous chapter. The answer rests in part with
methodology. The Atlas reports school district levels of
vulnerability that combine the many idiosyncrasies and
differences between local kindergarten children and their
families to provide a summary rate of vulnerability for the
56
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

community. Later in this chapter we will look at how these
summary rates relate to the social and economic
characteristics of communities, as collected by the 2001
Census. This sort of analysis focuses on what researchers
call “ecological correlations.” Our interest in the relationship
between SES and neighbourhood rates of vulnerability
differs importantly from many of the studies to which we
allude above. These examine the influence of socioeconomic
status on individual children living within single households
that are in turn rooted within neighbourhoods, in order to
separate out the family SES effect on a particular child from
the neighbourhood effect. The HELP team would also
expect to find weaker associations between geographic
location and vulnerability were we to adopt the latter
methodology.
The Atlas deliberately departs from this alternative analytical
strategy in order to feature maps that illustrate ecological
correlations because this information is often especially
useful for policymaking purposes. While the majority of
policies aim to improve the lived experience of individuals,
the levers and legislation available to communities and
governments cannot typically engage directly with individual
circumstances. Instead they must grapple with generalizations
about the families that live in communities when designing
policy. EDI average scores and vulnerability rates thus
present population health data at a level of abstraction that
is valuable for policy design. We will see in the last chapter
of the Atlas that these scores and rates are very useful
planning tools for stakeholders looking for the right balance
between targeted and/or universal policies, and thinking
about how to organize civic society initiatives that will
improve the environment for caregiving and child
development.
Although socioeconomic status is by no means the only
factor influencing development, the finding that family and
neighbourhood social gradients mediate early child outcomes
has significant policy implications. If we wish to make a
meaningful improvement in the state of early child
development in BC, we must find ways to create universal
access to the conditions for optimal development irrespective
of where children and their caregivers live, or the social
groups in which they belong. To this end, this chapter aims
to advance knowledge and debate about the role that
socioeconomic conditions in communities play in accounting
for observed differences in the rates of vulnerability between
school districts and the neighbourhoods within them.
This line of analysis has it roots in the African proverb, ‘It
takes a village to raise a child.’ Implicit in this statement
is an assumption that the community context in which
children grow influences their development. Put simply,
the assumption is that the village nurtures. Child development
is not just a reflection of private parenting patterns, or the
resources that individual families have to invest in their
children. It also reflects the broader social dynamics and
institutions through which the entire citizenry organizes
itself economically, culturally, socially and so on. These
broader community conditions and practices create an
environment for social care that matters when it comes to
raising healthy, happy children who have the potential to
thrive as they mature.
A now classic review article by Jencks and Mayer (1990)
helps to unpack the social care thesis by considering the
multiple ways in which neighbourhood settings may impact
early development. They focus on five patterns of influence:
1. Neighbourhood resources: child outcomes are
related to the level of resources available in
communities, especially publicly provided or
subsidized resources like community centres,
parks, and child care.
2. Collective socialization: child outcomes relate
to the social ties between community residents
that facilitate the collective monitoring of
children relative to shared neighbourhood norms
and practices, as well as positive role modelling.
Neighbourhood characteristics, such as poverty,
residential instability, lone parenthood and ethnic
diversity, support or hinder the formation of
this sort of neighbourhood social organization.
3. Contagion: child outcomes are influenced by
the power of neighbourhood relations, especially
with peers, to spread problem behaviour.
4. Competition: child outcomes reflect competition
between neighbours for scarce resources.
5. Relative deprivation: child outcomes are
influenced by how children and their families
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
57

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
evaluate their own circumstances relative to
neighbours and peers.
Contagion and collective socialization models suggest that
affluent and/or family-oriented neighbourhoods convey
benefits to children, especially from low-income families.
By contrast, the competition and relative deprivation models
imply that children from less privileged homes will struggle
in affluent community contexts because they may not be
able to keep up with classmates, or they may suffer lower
self-esteem if they compare themselves to others.
3. explore neighbourhood settings defined by the
convenience of Census survey boundaries, rather
than community divisions that reflect the
perceptions of diverse groups of local residents;
4. examine only one or two developmental domains;
and
5. employ a theoretically compelling, but still
narrow, understanding of the neighbourhood
characteristics that influence development.
Readers may find these conceptual models helpful when
considering what distinguishes a low challenge EDI
community from one that is high challenge. Is the former
home to more public resources and/or collective socialization
than the latter? Does the latter suffer from a greater pattern
of contagion than the other? Conversely, do wide-ranging
EDI results in some districts reflect the intersection of
competition and relative deprivation patterns through which
relatively privileged children benefit from greater access to
scarce resources, while the less privileged feel disempowered
by their inferior standing? And what of buffered EDI
communities? Do these districts witness contagion patterns
in which relatively low standards for early development
become the local norm, while social organization at the
neighbourhood level and/or local resources simultaneously
ensure that EDI scores do not regularly fall below
vulnerability thresholds?
Using the EDI to Explore the Social Care Thesis
T
he EDI mapping project at HELP provides a unique
opportunity to investigate the social care thesis and
advance our understanding of neighbourhood influences
on development beyond the current literature in a number
of important ways. Most studies:
1. rely on relatively small samples of children for
whom outcome data is available;
2. focus on high-risk populations, particularly lowbirth-weight
children or very poor families in
inner-city American urban environments;
The SES-EDI analyses featured below overcome problems
1 and 2 by collecting developmental outcome data from
nearly 44,000 kindergarten children from all walks of life
across the province; distances itself from problem 3 by
engaging local constituents in the definition of
neighbourhoods and then organizing 2001 Census data
accordingly; transcends problem 4 by measuring physical
well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language
and cognitive development, as well as general knowledge
and communication; and goes a long way to overcoming
problem 5 because population-level outcome data facilitate
exploratory modelling to identify which of roughly one
thousand Census SES variables co-occur significantly with
favourable and worrisome development patterns across
neighbourhoods.
The latter improvement is particularly noteworthy when
studying neighbourhood effects on early development since,
for statistical purposes, SES is often treated as a composite
measure of income, level of education, and occupational
prestige (for example Willms 2002; D'Angiulli et al. 2004;
Keating and Hertzman 1999). But this strategy begs a number
of questions, including: ‘Which income variable?’, ‘Whose
level of education?’, and ‘What occupation?’. The answer
is not obvious since the Canadian Census collects information
about dozens of variables that relate to these three themes.
Plus, how do we know that income, education and
occupational prestige capture the characteristics of
communities that matter most for child development in BC?
And should we presume that the SES characteristics that
matter for one aspect of development are also the factors
that matter for other developmental domains?
Linking EDI results with Census data from British Columbia
opens the door to engage directly with the above questions.
58
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

By measuring child development in neighbourhoods in every
school district across the province, EDI data allow researchers,
policy makers and citizens alike to identify communities
that are succeeding in mitigating the risks of developmental
delay, as well as those that are not as successful on this
front. This identification allows researchers to discern the
social and economic characteristics of communities that
have high and low EDI scores on all five developmental
scales. The Atlas uses these observations to explore which
socioeconomic factors have the most important associations
with each aspect of child development in our province:
physical, social, emotional and so on. The goal is to produce
a “made-in-BC analysis” that illuminates the SES differences
at the neighbourhood level that appear to make the biggest
difference for each domain of child development here at
home. These correlations offer important opportunities for
policy learning and community development by providing
insight about the kinds of conditions that governments and
citizens should try to promote in order to prevent
developmental delays and to improve child well-being.
The Atlas team’s examination of correlations between the
full range of Census indicators and EDI scores revealed a
subset of roughly one hundred variables that had potential
to be significant predictors of vulnerability (without being
too highly intercorrelated). These variables were included
in multiple linear regression analyses to create models to
explain EDI risk scores in each of the five scales for BC
neighbourhoods, as well as a model of vulnerability on one
or more scale. Given the exploratory nature of our model
building, the selected variables were subjected to both
“stepwise” and “backward” regressions in order to check
the stability of the final models. When these techniques
identify statistically significant predictors of vulnerability,
we report importance scores. An importance score indicates
the relative size of the effect of each significant predictor,
with the total for all predictors in the model adding to one
hundred. These scores permit direct comparisons of the
power of each predictor in the model to explain variation
in vulnerability rates across BC communities.
Readers will see below that the five models that emerge
from our study to depict the relationship between SES and
neighbourhood vulnerability rates for each of the EDI scales
account for between 21% and 47% of the variation between
communities (see Tables 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.6.1).
A sixth model examining the association between SES and
vulnerability on at least one EDI scale explains 43 percent
of the variation between neighbourhoods (see Table 4.7.1).
Readers should recall that this explanatory power is
considerably higher than that attributed to the combined
influence of neighbourhood and family SES effects by
studies that we cited above, in part because the Atlas focuses
on ecological correlations for which neighbourhood rates
of vulnerability are the unit of analysis — not individual
children. However, we also suspect that previous research
would likely have found a larger neighbourhood SES effect
on development had these studies integrated some of the
strengths of the methodology we used to build SES-EDI
models for this atlas.
The six models that we present collectively identify 19
neighbourhood-SES indicators to be significant predictors
of the share of children at risk of developmental delays in
BC as measured by EDI scores. The indicators and the
direction of their influence on vulnerability rates are
summarized in Table 4.1.1. The upward arrow ( ) signals
that the variable correlates with higher rates of vulnerability;
the downward arrow ( ) indicates that the variable associates
lower levels of vulnerability.
The meaning of many of the variables listed in Table 4.1.1
is straightforward. Some, however, require more
interpretation. For instance, the low-income rate signals the
share of the population that suffers household income levels
that fall below Statistics Canada’s low-income cut-offs
(LICO). The LICO captures households that spend 55% or
more of their income on basic necessities and is regarded
by some, including the National Council of Welfare, to be
a measure of poverty. It is a particularly useful measure of
neighbourhood income status because it is sensitive to local
housing and food costs, unlike direct measures of income.
The concentration of low income in a neighbourhood is
related to physical vulnerability, as well as vulnerability on
at least one EDI scale. The adverse influence on early
development associated with poverty is a dominant theme
in the neighbourhood effects literature. However, it is worth
noting that the LICO variable is not the most common
income indicator in Table 4.1.1. Other income variables
factor in the remaining models, including the median family
income in the neighbourhood. Our finding that the income
level of the average family in a community is a better
predictor of social competence and cognitive development
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
59

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
Table 4.1.1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Neighbourhoods that Associate with Vulnerability by EDI Scale
Physical
Health
Vulnerability
Social
Competence
Vulnerability
Emotional
Maturity
Vulnerability
Language/
Cognitive
Vulnerability
Communications/
General Knowledge
Vulnerability
Vulnerability
on Any EDI
Scale
Income
Median family income
Homeownership rate
Low income rate
As rate
rises
As income
rises
As income
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
Gender income
disparity
As disparity
rises
Employment
Male employment rate,
with children under 6
As rate
rises
Male employment rate,
with children any age
As rate
rises
Unemployment rate,
with children under 6
As rate
rises
Employment rate,
with children under 6
As rate
rises
Occupation
Percentage of females in
manufacturing positions
As rate
rises
Percentage of males in
management positions
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
Domestic Work
Percentage of males performing
no unpaid child care
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
Percentage of adults performing
no unpaid housework
As rate
rises
Family Structure
Percentage of lone-parent
families
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
Percentage of males who
drive to work
As rate
rises
Immigration
Percentage of first generation
Canadians
As rate
rises
Residential Stability
Percentage of non-migrant
movers
As rate
rises
Group Membership
Percentage reporting
Aboriginal status
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
As rate
rises
Percentage of non-Christians
As rate
rises
Percentage using a
foreign home language
As rate
rises
60
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

than are low-income rates is supported by other studies
which conclude that the beneficial effects of neighbourhood
affluence more powerfully influence early development than
do the harmful effects of neighbourhood poverty (for example
Klebanov et al. 1998, 1431; Brooks-Gunn et al. 1993).
The rate of employment (and/or unemployment) among
parents of young children predicts the level of childhood
vulnerability in the neighbourhood at kindergarten in terms
of emotional, language and cognitive development, as well
as children’s overall risk of delay on one or more EDI scales
(see Table 4.1.1). Higher employment levels mean less risk.
While employment rates between men and women are linked,
male employment levels appear to be the stronger predictor
of vulnerability, which likely reflects in part the gender
division of labour. For scholars who focus on the theme of
collective socialization, levels of un/employment are
sometimes interpreted as signals of the adult role modelling
to which children are subject in their neighbourhood (for
example Wilson 1987).
Census data show that females in manufacturing is an
occupational category that is filled disproportionately by
women of colour, for whom English is not the language
spoken at home, and who struggle with education levels
below grade nine. While manufacturing for men may mean
blue-collar jobs often in unionized settings that pay solid
wages and offer regular opportunities for paid overtime, this
does not seem to be the case for women. Rather, women
in manufacturing jobs are more likely to be those who can
only find work at the periphery of the labour market in less
secure labour settings that pay very modest wages, sometimes
in piece-work employment. Readers should thus not interpret
the inclusion of this SES variable in the column summarizing
predictors of physical vulnerability to be suggesting that
women’s employment is generally bad for the physical
development of the children who reside in their
neighbourhoods. Rather, the variable signals that as the
share of women in a neighbourhood who work at the
periphery of the labour market increases, so we can expect
the share of children at risk of physical developmental delays
to also rise. The variable thus pushes researchers and policy
makers alike to consider how the presence or absence of
social and labour protections for people, especially women,
working at the margins of the economy factor in social care
contexts and child development.
Conversely, the percentage of males in management refers
to a segment of the labour market that is especially likely
to have a university degree, be self-employed and
incorporated, earn higher incomes, and enjoy less risk of
unemployment or reliance on government transfers. As
neighbourhoods are home to more men who enjoy the
occupational prestige available to those working at the core
of the labour force, we can expect children’s vulnerability
to drop in respect of several domains. This variable appears
more often than any other in Table 4.1.1, factoring in four
of the six models that explain the relationship between
neighbourhood SES and EDI vulnerability rates. Some
previous studies that found an association between
development and the share of professional or managerial
workers in a neighbourhood have interpreted this result to
support social care theories that stress the importance of
community resources and the favourable role modelling that
affluent neighbours may provide (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1993,
377).
Given the role that caregiving plays in child development,
it is not surprising that a variable describing care patterns
in neighbourhoods is a significant predictor of vulnerability
among children. Too often, however, this variable is
overlooked in the literature about neighbourhood effects.
What is particularly interesting about the studies conducted
for this atlas is that the percentage of males who perform
no unpaid child care in a typical week is the caregiving
variable from the Census that is the strongest predictor of
EDI vulnerability rates. The Census invites people to report
about the weekly time they spend looking after children
without getting paid for doing so. This time is reported in
blocks that range from zero hours, less than 5 hours, 5 to
14 hours, and so on up to 60 hours or more. It includes
caring actively for one’s own children, as well as looking
after the children of relatives, friends or neighbours. Readers
should note that the share of men who perform zero hours
of unpaid child care correlates negatively with the share of
males who perform some and a lot of care, and it also
correlates with women’s care patterns. Nevertheless, this
particular variable yields greater power to predict
developmental delay in BC than any other Census caregiving
measure.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
61

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
The percentage of males who perform no unpaid care is one
of three variables that factor in half the SES-EDI models
we feature in this atlas and summarize in Table 4.1.1. As
the share of men who perform no unpaid child care during
a typical week rises, regressions show that child vulnerability
rates increase in respect of physical vulnerability, emotional
vulnerability, and vulnerability on one or more EDI scale.
The attention that our SES-EDI models for British Columbia
direct to male care inactivity dovetails in interesting ways
with scholarship that also attributes gaps in male African
Americans’ educational outcomes to the absence of male
role models in many black US families (Leventhal and
Brooks-Gunn 2004, 489; see also Gilder 1987).
Beyond care patterns, the percentage of males who perform
no unpaid child care is also strongly related to the percentage
of the population under age six, the proportion of the
population that is divorced or separated, household size,
employment rates, and income. Thus, this variable not only
directs attention to domestic caregiving patterns, it also
alerts researchers to community dynamics that unfold when
there are fewer young children, higher rates of failed
marriages, weaker labour force participation rates and lower
incomes.
One might think that the percentage of adults in a community
who perform no unpaid housework (in the week previous
to their completing the 2001 Census) should be interpreted
much like the men who perform no unpaid child care variable.
While the two measures both signal the importance of
domestic patterns for child development, and especially that
more domestic activity (particularly among men) translates
into less risk for children, the Atlas team found their similarity
stops there (their intercorrelation is less than 0.5). In contrast
to the caregiving variable which draws attention to the age
of the population, divorce rates and weaker employment
patterns in a neighbourhood, the no-unpaid-housework
variable is more closely related to the share of the population
with sub-LICO incomes, the share that does not speak
English at home, the percentage of non-Christians, the
percentage of immigrants, and the percentage of visible
minorities in the neighbourhood.
Burton and Jarrett (2000, 1123) help us to interpret the
attention that this indicator directs to poverty and the groups
of individuals who are more likely to suffer it. They remark
that, “According to a number of studies, families who avoid
many of the stresses associated with residence in
impoverished neighbourhoods have a reoccurring and orderly
schedule for executing domestic and household tasks ….
Family routines resulted in ‘well-kept’ households and meals
prepared ahead of time.” Similarly, Wilson (1987) proposes
a psychological interpretation in which domestic planning,
efficacy and organization may be low when most neighbours
engage in subsistence living or, alternatively, high when the
majority of neighbours work in well-paying jobs.
The percentage of lone-parent families in a neighbourhood
is a second variable that factors in three different models of
the relationship between SES and EDI vulnerability scores:
those that predict social, emotional and language/cognitive
vulnerabilities (see Table 4.1.1). The significant influence
of this variable on development is regularly reported in the
literature about neighbourhood effects, including in Canada
(for example Kohen et al. 2002; Boyle and Lipman 2002).
Its occurrence in multiple models in our study provides
further evidence that child vulnerability is exacerbated by
environments in which parents, predominantly mothers,
must shoulder child-rearing responsibilities alone. Children
in single-parent families may have available to them less
adult social support and mentorship. Work-life conflicts
regarding responsibilities to children also tend to be greater
for single-parent families than two-parent families, with
lone mothers reporting the highest rates of stress in the
country (Statistics Canada 1999c). Boyle and Lipman (2002,
386) speculate that the numerous stressors that converge in
the lives of lone parents, such as low income, unemployment,
demanding parenting responsibilities and tension with former
partners, may “weaken their involvement in community life
and, in turn, weaken the institutional and social supports
available to children in particular neighbourhoods.”
The extent to which this evidence should motivate public
policy that privileges two-parent families or deters divorce
is open to debate. Any such debate should be informed by
careful familiarity with public policy in Scandinavian
countries that have virtually eliminated child poverty among
lone-parent families. Single mothers in Sweden typically
earn the majority of their income through employment —
not government transfers (Sainsbury 1996, 84). In Canada,
the reverse is true. Higher employment rates among
Scandinavian mothers can be attributed in large part to the
universal systems of child care that operate in those countries,
plus more generously funded parental leave programs that
62
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

afford families more time and flexibility to care personally
for their children and blend family with employment during
the early years of their children’s lives.
The percentage of males who drive to work stands out as
being the most unusual socioeconomic predictor of
vulnerability in our modelling analyses, co-occurring with
social (in)competence rates (see Table 4.1.1). Its meaning
is not obvious at first glance, but becomes easier to understand
when it is recognized that the share of men who drive to
work is correlated negatively with the proportion of the
population that moved in the previous 12 months, and
positively correlated with the share of the community that
is married. Thus, the variable may be a marker for
neighbourhoods that are home to citizens who are more
settled and enjoy more secure spousal relationships. Given
these correlations, we have chosen to group the percentage
of men who drive to work with the share of lone-parent
families under the heading of family structure. Still, more
research is required to determine the value, if any, of including
this variable in analyses of neighbourhood effects on child
development.
The percentage of non-migrant movers refers to the share
of the population that changed residences in the past five
years, but continued to live within the same community. It
is a measure of in-migration, and may represent changes as
trivial as moving down the street. Census data do not allow
us to discern a family’s reasons for moving or the
characteristics of the neighbourhood they left behind. This
information is important for determining how to interpret
the relationship between the percentage of non-migrant
movers and child vulnerability. In the Atlas model, the
direction is positive: as moving increases, so does
vulnerability on one or more EDI scale. Since the variable
corresponds somewhat with the share of households in a
community headed by a lone parent who are
disproportionately poor, our interpretation is influenced by
the observation of Keels et al. (2005, 52) that, “Although
rates of residential mobility among poor urban minority
families are high [in the US], relatively few manage to
escape from poor neighbourhoods.” Given this finding, we
interpret that the percentage of non-migrant movers signals
the challenges of maintaining a home environment amidst
deprivation more so than it signals moving in response to
improved circumstances.
The final three variables in Table 4.1.1 draw attention to the
role that ethnic and religious group membership plays in
predicting childhood vulnerability. The inclusion of these
variables in the SES models poses important methodological
questions about the capacity of the Early Development
Instrument to predict vulnerability among some social groups
accurately. For instance, the fact that vulnerability on the
communication and general knowledge scale is predicted
by the share of the population that is Aboriginal and/or does
not speak English at home, may suggest that the tool is not
evaluating these children according to cultural norms
prescribed in their own homes or ethnocultural communities.
Alternatively, if the EDI is culturally appropriate for
Aboriginal and non-Christian groups (and recall that it has
been validated by research for use with Aboriginal children),
then the last three variables likely draw attention to the
legacy of racism and related social dynamics that track
minority group membership. The finding that the share of
the population that is ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘not Christian’ appears
in explanatory models after controlling for income,
immigration, employment, occupation and so on, indicates
that there is something distinct about this group membership
that correlates with greater levels of child vulnerability.
This interpretation is particularly relevant to the Aboriginal
variable, which appears in three models explaining physical
vulnerability, communication vulnerability, and vulnerability
on one or more EDI scale (Table 4.1.1). It is now widely
understood that the practices of colonialism and residential
schools in Canada undermined Aboriginal parenting styles
and community traditions that are only now being updated
and restored. Our SES-EDI analyses lend further credence
to this view. Similarly, our analyses also support the position
that social dynamics which marginalize or demean members
of non-Christian communities increase vulnerability for
children residing in neighbourhoods that are home to a
higher percentage of people who do not share Christian
traditions.
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2004, 489-90) develop a related
analysis in respect to African Americans. They report that
“African American children and adolescents are especially
likely to reside in poor, segregated neighbourhoods,
particularly African Americans living in urban areas. In
addition, these neighbourhoods are often marked by pervasive
crime and violence, low social cohesion, delinquent peer
groups, and low-quality schools. These contextual challenges
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
63

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
are thought to exacerbate the disenfranchisement that African
American adolescents, especially males, may experience
with respect to their academic pursuits.”
Consistent with this final theme, the variables listed in Table
4.1.1 provide reason to examine the intersection of a set of
‘isms,’ racism, sexism, and classism, that may be hard to
talk about in policy debates, but which nonetheless may be
negatively influencing child development in the province
in subtle ways. Just as Aboriginal, non-Christian and ESL
variables correlate with increased rates of childhood
vulnerability, so too do the immigration variable and the
variable denoting the share of women (disproportionately
of colour) who labour in manufacturing jobs at the periphery
of the labour market.
Similarly, the share of lone-parent families (more than 80%
of which are headed by women), the male-female income
disparity and the percentage of men who perform no unpaid
child care are implicated with the gender division of labour.
While a vast academic literature shows that this division is
harmful for women (for example Kershaw 2005; Fraser
1994; Bakker 1996), EDI results in BC suggest that the
division may also be harmful for children since all three
variables are associated with greater rates of vulnerability
at kindergarten age.
Class dynamics are equally obvious in the income variables,
the occupational variables, and the employment variables.
As class disparities increase, so too do the rates of childhood
vulnerability.
Finally, Table 4.1.1 is noteworthy for what it does not
include: education variables. While existing literature
confirms that parental, and especially maternal, education
correlates significantly with child development when looking
at an individual child’s household (Willms 2002), the findings
reported in this atlas suggest that the explanatory power of
education on vulnerability levels declines considerably when
assessed at the neighbourhood level. In the latter case,
patterns of vulnerability in BC provide reason to believe
that occupation, income, employment, and domestic variables
are more important predictors of developmental delay than
education. This finding should not be interpreted to mean
that education within communities doesn’t matter for child
development. Rather, in so far as education levels are
implicated in family income, home ownership and parental
occupation, education variables do not offer any independent
explanation of child vulnerability patterns when researchers
control for these other characteristics of BC neighbourhoods.
Despite access to roughly one thousand variables from the
2001 Census, we expect that the explanatory power of the
SES-EDI models we present below would be higher had we
had access to additional information, including:
a child’s period of residence in the
neighbourhood, since some studies report that
children are only significantly influenced by
neighbourhood income if they have lived there
for at least three years (for example Turley 2003);
crime rates;
the concentration of persistent poverty and/or
unemployment, say over five to six years, in
contrast to LICO and employment measures in
the Census, which only allow us to consider
these issues at one point in time;
depth of poverty;
concentration of household high income;
the general physical and social surroundings of
the neighbourhood, including such things as
traffic; garbage/litter; people loitering or
congregating; persons arguing, shouting, or
otherwise behaving in a threatening manner;
frequency of intoxicated people visible on the
street; and the general condition of most nearby
buildings; and
the level of neighbourhood cohesion, as indicated
by the extent to which neighbours get together
to deal with problems collectively; there are
adults to whom children can look up; whether
neighbours demonstrate a willingness to help
one another; and the availability of neighbours
who can be counted on to watch that children
are safe.
64
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Readers who wish to use the Atlas as a community
development tool to explore the associations between local
SES and child development outcomes in more detail would
be well advised to consider integrating data that captures
some of the above information into their analyses. Local
researchers, planners and activists can take heart in the fact
that Curtis et al. (2004, 1925) find that resident-reported
measures of neighbourhood quality appear to be more
statistically significant in studies than are observations from
individuals who are not residents, and even better still than
aggregate measures of geographical neighbourhoods which
are available through Census data. The implication is that
research initiatives that include local evaluators of
neighbourhood characteristics are especially well-positioned
to unpack the complex associations between neighbourhood
SES and early development.
SES Pie Charts
T
he maps in this chapter portray the relationship between
the 19 SES indicators listed in Table 4.1.1 and EDI
results. They allow policy makers, city planners and others
to familiarize themselves visually with the local and provincial
socioeconomic characteristics that seem to make the most
difference for child development in BC neighbourhoods
today. Some maps summarize provincial EDI-SES trends
Figure 4.1.1: Socioeconomic Pie Chart Schematic
across school districts, while others focus in more detail on
EDI-SES trends in specific neighbourhoods and among the
Aboriginal population of BC.
The provincial maps below will look very familiar because
they present the same EDI results at the school district level
that were considered in the previous chapter. Readers should
notice that the major addition to maps in this chapter is a
series of three-slice pie charts, which are assigned to school
districts and neighbourhoods to summarize how communities
compare to others in the province in terms of the three
socioeconomic characteristics that correlate most strongly
with the EDI scale under consideration. Figure 4.1.1
illustrates how each map will include a legend on the right
hand side that will enable readers to interpret SES
characteristics represented by pie slices. The pie slices are
colour-coded individually to illustrate whether the community
is more or less advantaged in terms of the socioeconomic
variable at issue. In keeping with the colour-coding employed
throughout this atlas, green slices depict when the community
is relatively advantaged in terms of the socioeconomic
characteristic; yellow shows that the district is mid-range;
and red draws attention to districts that face the greatest
obstacle in terms of the socioeconomic condition under
consideration.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Gulf
Islands
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Variable A
Variable B
Cowichan
Valley
Saanich
Variable C
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher prevalence of Socioeconomic variable A,
Higher prevalence of Socioeconomic variable B, Higher
prevalence of Socioeconomic variable C
Sooke
Victoria
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower prevalence of Socioeconomic variable A,
Lower prevalence of Socioeconomic variable B, Lower
prevalence of Socioeconomic variable C
65

128 St
152 St
152 St
144 St
EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
School District Maps
P
rovincial maps that show the relationship between
EDI results and school district SES are supplemented
with maps for specific school districts that are broken down
according to the neighbourhood boundaries agreed to by
the local coalition for early childhood development. Recall
from the introduction that HELP geographers were guided
by these consultations to divide BC into 469 local
neighbourhoods.
In urban settings, the neighbourhoods tend to cover small
geographic areas and differ significantly in their
socioeconomic characteristics. In non-urban areas, the term
“neighbourhoods” may be synonymous with communities
that often contain the full socioeconomic spectrum of families.
But this is not always the case. For instance, although Prince
Rupert is divided into only four neighbourhoods, these
differ from one another in socioeconomic character almost
to the same degree that the many neighbourhoods in Surrey
do. Figure 4.1.2 illustrates this similarity between the cities
in respect of the range between local neighbourhoods in
terms of the concentration of low income households.
Although the minimum neighbourhood size is typically set
at 40 EDI respondents, exceptions had to be made in some
areas to maintain the integrity of community boundaries,
with the result that some areas, like Nisga’a, fall below 30
children. On the other hand, in many of the small
communities we have managed to complete the EDI two or
more years in a row, allowing us to add together children
in a given neighbourhood/community from successive years
in order to maintain neighbourhood integrity and, also, meet
our minimum sample size requirement. At the other end
of the spectrum, some neighbourhoods have as many as 250
kindergarten children in them.
Figure 4.1.2: Comparison of Neighbourhood SES in Surrey and Prince Rupert
Socioeconomic Variable
Percent of persons in
households below the Low
Income Cut-off (LICO)
22.8 % and above
16.2 - 22.7 %
12.7 - 16.1 %
9.7 - 12.6 %
9.6 % and below
Surrey
91
Nordel Way
Gateway
104 Ave
88 Ave
108 Ave
Hjorth
Royal Cedar
Whalley East
Whalley
Heights Hills
Matheson
Whalley
South Green
Timbers
Kirkbride Cindrich
Kennedy
Trail
Bridgeview
Bear Creek
99A
Grosvenor
1
Glfd Glfd.
W.
Johnson
Heights
Fleetwood
West
Guildford East
Fleetwood North
Fltwd.
Fraser Heights
Trans - Canada Highway
1A
15
88 Ave
1
Harvie Road
Scott Road
Pacific Hwy
(176 St)
Prince
Rupert
2nd Ave W
Centre
5th Ave E
McBride St
Cow Bay
16
Prince
11th Ave E
Hays Cove Rd
Blvd
Rupert
6th Ave E
Seal Cove
Frederick St
72 Ave
Kittison Pkwy
91
Scott Road
S.H.
W.
S.H. S.H.
E.
S.H.S. Newton
Newton
Beaver Cr. South
Panorama
Ridge N.
10
Panorama Ridge
99
Newton
North
72 Ave
Newton East
64 Ave
Sanford
North Ridge
99A
Fleetwood
South
Fleetwood
East
Sullivan
Hwy 10 (56 Ave)
Kensington
Pacific Hwy
(176 St)
64 Ave
56 Ave
Fraser Hwy
10
Cloverdale
West
Cloverdale
East
Park Ave
South / Ferry
Crescent Beach
Ocean Park
King George Hwy
South
Surrey
16 Ave
99
Stayte
Street
15
16 Ave
White Rock
Marine Dr
8 Ave
Ferry
Terminal
16
66
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Chameleon Communities
T
he relationship between SES and child development
can be read directly from maps with SES pie charts.
Chameleon communities (those that take on the colour of
their SES variables) show the relationship most directly. A
green pie on green background shows that communities
which are relatively privileged in terms of the selected
socioeconomic characteristics are also enjoying less childhood
vulnerability. This pattern is what we would expect to find.
Red-on-red patterns illustrate a similar story about the
relationship between SES and vulnerability, although one
that moves in the opposite direction. Communities that
struggle with more disadvantaged social and economic
circumstances typically suffer higher rates of vulnerability.
Janus Communities
F
or policy and community development purposes, some
of the most interesting communities are those that do
the opposite of the chameleon: they stand out for having
EDI vulnerability colours that are distinctly different from
their SES pie charts. In such communities, children’s
development is less influenced by socioeconomic
characteristics than we would predict.
The colour contrast can be good news or bad news. For
example, some school districts have a pie chart that is entirely
red; yet their physical vulnerability is relatively low and
portrayed dark green. These areas on the map are good
news stories because they represent communities that are
overcoming socioeconomic circumstances that would
generally result in higher rates of vulnerability among
kindergarten children. Policy makers will want to pay
particular attention to these kinds of communities to learn
what is allowing citizens in this district to protect children
from the negative SES influences. Does it have something
to do with the community resources and assets that citizens
enjoy? The level of trust in the community? The level of
collective socialization or cohesion? Or something else
entirely? It is vitally important for us to understand the
factors that allow some neighbourhoods and school districts
to do better than predicted because it will likely be easier
to transfer these factors to other regions than it will be to
change socioeconomic conditions.
Colour-contrasting communities can also have EDI outcomes
that are particularly worrisome. Communities that enjoy
relatively favourable green SES pie charts may report midrange
yellow or low-range red vulnerability rates. This
colour combination paints the picture of a community that
has vulnerability rates that fall below expectations based
solely on social and economic conditions in the community.
In statistical and epidemiological circles colour-contrasting
communities would be referred to as ‘off-diagonals’ because
their EDI outcomes are located further from the correlation
line than chameleon communities in regression diagrams
that show the relationship between SES and developmental
outcomes (see Figure 4.1.3). In some cases, we quantify
this off-diagonal character by reporting the level of
vulnerability that we predict for neighbourhoods based on
the correlation line and local SES, the actual rate measured
by the EDI, and the difference between the two. For each
EDI scale, we record the neighbourhoods in BC for which
the difference between predicted and actual rates is greatest
by listing in order the 25 neighbourhoods that fall furthest
above the correlation line, as well as the 25 that fall furthest
below (see Tables 4.2.7, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5 and 4.7.5).
Figure 4.1.3: Janus (Off-diagonal) Communities
% vulnerable, any scale
30%
20%
10%
Off-diagonal
Communities
Actual vulnerability
rates above predictions
Correlation
Line
0
0 10% 20% 30%
Off-diagonal
Communities
Actual vulnerability
rates below predictions
*Fictitious data used for illustrative purposes
% of lone-parent families in neighbourhood
Rather than use the term ‘off-diagonals,’ however, the Atlas
refers to these communities as ‘Janus communities.’ Not
only does the term appropriately acknowledge the
foundational work performed by Dr. Magdelana Janus in
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
67

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part One: Relationships Between EDI Results and Socioeconomic Status: An Introduction
developing the EDI, Janus is the Roman god of, among
other things, beginnings and endings, and he was historically
worshipped at important life-course events that coincided
with young people growing up. Janus is represented with
a double-faced head, each looking in opposite directions
(Figure 4.1.4). The two faces of this god conveniently
represent the two faces of colour-contrasting communities,
which may be disadvantaged in terms of their socioeconomic
status while privileged in respect of EDI outcomes, or vice
versa.
Figure 4.1.4: Roman Bust of Janus
This recognition is important since low challenge districts
may be chameleon or Janus communities, or encounter
average (yellow) or mixed (multi-coloured) SES pies.
Low challenge chameleon communities enjoy favourable
EDI results in part, we presume, because of their favourable
socioeconomic circumstances. In contrast, low challenge
Janus communities enjoy favourable EDI results despite
their disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances. In other
words, low challenge Janus districts are low challenge with
respect to child outcomes, but high challenge in regards to
the social and economic conditions in which local families
with children live.
Conversely, low average scores on an EDI scale and high
rates of developmental delay signal high challenge
communities in terms of development. High challenge
districts can also be either chameleon or Janus communities.
High challenge chameleon communities suffer poor EDI
outcomes in part because they are challenged by relatively
difficult social and economic conditions. But high challenge
Janus communities struggle with poor EDI outcomes despite
benefiting from relatively advantaged SES. Thus, high
challenge Janus communities are high challenge in regards
to child outcomes but low challenge in terms of SES.
Source: Vatican Museum
Community Categories and SES: Complicating the Typology
I
ntegrating SES considerations when interpreting EDI
maps requires that we complicate the five-part community
typology featured in the previous chapter, which categorized
communities as having average, high challenge, low
challenge, buffered or wide ranging EDI results (see Figure
4.1.5). Added complexity arises because EDI results occur
in communities that may have average, high challenge, low
challenge, or mixed social and economic conditions.
Recall that high average scores and low vulnerability rates
render some districts low challenge communities in terms
of development. It is important for readers to recognize,
however, that this classification refers only to EDI outcomes
as they lend themselves to forward-looking interpretations
that suggest families, schools and social planners in the area
have fewer difficulties to overcome to foster healthy early
development in their neighbourhoods.
Communities that are average in terms of their EDI scores
and vulnerability rates may also be average in respect of
local social and economic conditions. We refer to these as
average chameleon communities. But average EDI results
can also occur in communities that have high, low or mixed
challenge SES.
Finally, buffered and wide ranging communities have EDI
results that are a mixed bag of positive and negative
development outcomes. Recall that buffered communities
have low average scores, a somewhat disappointing result,
without reporting high vulnerability rates, a positive outcome.
Wide ranging communities, in contrast, enjoy high average
scores, a positive result, but report high levels of vulnerability,
which is a worrisome outcome. Readers who are particularly
interested in the relationship between SES and EDI outcomes
will wish to pay careful attention to the colours of the SES
pies in these communities to determine if multi-coloured
pies consistently occur in communities that report mixedbag
EDI results.
68
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Figure 4.1.5: Colour Codes for EDI - SES Community Classification
EDI Classification SES Classification EDI - SES Classification
Average
Vulnerability: Yellow
Average Score: Yellow
High Challenge Average
Vulnerability: Yellow Red
Average Score: Score: Yellow Red
Low Challenge Average
Vulnerability: Yellow Green
Average Score: Yellow Green
Average
Socioeconomic
Status: Yellow
High Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Red
Low Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Green
Mixed
Socioeconomic
Status: Multi-coloured
Average
Socioeconomic
Status: Yellow
High Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Red
Low Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Green
Mixed
Socioeconomic
Status: Multi-coloured
Average
Socioeconomic
Status: Yellow
High Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Red
Low Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Green
Mixed
Socioeconomic
Status: Multi-coloured
Average
Socioeconomic
Status: Yellow
Average
Chameleon
Average High
Challenge SES
Average Low
Challenge SES
Average
Mixed SES
High Challenge Average
Average Chameleon SES
High Average Challenge High
Challenge Chameleon SES
High Average Challenge Low
Challenge Janus SES
High Challenge Average
Mixed SES
Low Challenge Average
Average Chameleon SES
Low Average Challenge High
Challenge Janus SES
Low Average Challenge Low
Challenge Chameleon SES
Low Challenge Average
Mixed SES
Wide Average Range
Average Chameleon SES
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Wide Average Range
Vulnerability: Yellow Red
Average Score: Yellow Green
High Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Red
Low Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Green
Wide Average Range High
Challenge SES
Wide Average Range Low
Challenge SES
Mixed
Socioeconomic
Status: Multi-coloured
Wide Average Range
Mixed SES
Average
Socioeconomic
Status: Yellow
Buffered Average
Average Chameleon SES
Buffered Average
Vulnerability: Yellow Green
Average Score: Score: Yellow Red
High Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Red
Low Challenge
Socioeconomic
Status: Green
Buffered Average High
Challenge SES
Buffered Average Low
Challenge SES
Mixed
Socioeconomic
Status: Multi-coloured
Buffered Average
Mixed SES
69

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.2 Socioeconomic Status and Physical Well-being
Socioeconomic Status and Physical Well-being
C
hildren who live in environments that offer less than
optimal stimulation (i.e., inadequate nutritional intake
or physically unsupportive or unsafe environments)
experience much more acute and chronic stress than others
— which may have both immediate and lifelong physiologic
consequences. Because the central nervous system, which
is the centre of human consciousness, talks to the immune,
hormone and clotting systems, systematic differences in the
experience of life will increase or decrease levels of resistance
to disease. This will change the long-term function of vital
organs of the body and lead to socioeconomic differentials
in morbidity and mortality. This section advances knowledge
in BC by identifying the socioeconomic factors that are most
closely associated with children’s physical health in the
province so that policy makers are better positioned to target
the SES characteristics that matter most for physical wellbeing
here at home.
Variation in neighbourhood vulnerability rates tracks the
social and economic characteristics of BC communities.
Five of the 19 neighbourhood SES characteristics discussed
in Part 1 of this chapter are significant predictors of physical
vulnerability (see Table 4.2.1). Together, they explain 34%
of the variation in vulnerability across BC (Figure 4.2.1).
In other words, differences between neighbourhoods in
respect of the five SES factors explains one-third of the
range of physical vulnerability rates that we witness across
communities in the province.
Table 4.2.1: Significant SES Predictors of Physical
Vulnerability
Variable
(r 2 = 0.338)
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
% Aboriginal
Percentage reporting any Aboriginal Status
% Low Income
Percentage living below the low-income
cut-off (LICO)
% No Unpaid Child Care, Males
Percentage of males performing no unpaid
child care
% Manufacturing, Females
Percentage of females employed in
manufacturing positions
% Management, Males
Percentage of males employed in
management positions
Importance
Score
31.8
30.0
16.6
10.8
10.7
Table 4.2.2: Physical Well-being and SES in BC
SD#
19
20
51
44
6
72
45
37
22
36
43
8
38
5
63
83
34
41
71
33
53
62
35
46
70
64
61
78
60
81
73
40
48
27
23
42
54
47
75
59
57
68
91
67
79
87
74
69
28
82
58
10
85
50
39
52
49
92
84
District
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Boundary
North Vancouver
Rocky Mountain
Campbell River
West Vancouver
Delta
Vernon
Surrey
Coquitlam
Kootenay Lake
Richmond
Saanich
Southeast Kootenay
N. Okanagan - Shuswap
Abbotsford
Burnaby
Comox Valley
Chilliwack
Okanagan - Similkameen
Sooke
Langley
Sunshine Coast
Alberni
Gulf Islands
Greater Victoria
Fraser - Cascade
Peace River North
Fort Nelson
Kamloops - Thompson
New Westminster
Howe Sound
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Central Okanagan
Maple Ridge - Pitt Mdws.
Bulkley Valley
Powell River
Mission
Peace River South
Prince George
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Nechako Lakes
Okanagan - Skaha
Cowichan Valley
Stikine
Gold Trail
Qualicum
Quesnel
Coast Mountains
Nicola - Similkameen
Arrow Lakes
Island North
Haida Gwaii
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Central Coast
Nisga'a
Island West
EDI
Percent
Vulnerable
4.49
4.69
5.03
6.36
6.56
6.82
7.19
7.27
7.34
8.27
8.44
8.57
8.71
9.27
9.27
9.50
9.50
9.65
9.70
9.73
9.77
9.80
9.88
9.96
10.00
10.05
10.50
10.80
10.81
10.96
11.23
11.39
11.60
11.68
11.70
11.78
12.27
12.30
12.47
12.58
12.89
12.92
13.22
13.54
13.55
14.04
14.17
14.80
14.86
15.15
15.63
17.50
17.65
18.03
18.26
27.11
-
-
-
Average
Score
9.05
9.08
8.96
8.85
8.76
8.77
9.00
8.57
8.75
8.73
8.80
8.63
8.85
8.64
8.63
8.65
8.68
8.63
8.62
8.61
8.55
8.80
8.73
8.72
8.62
8.23
8.62
8.61
8.47
8.50
8.52
8.54
8.26
8.47
8.51
8.52
8.33
8.54
8.58
8.43
8.50
8.47
8.66
8.52
8.68
8.36
8.20
8.42
8.42
8.53
8.45
8.66
8.79
8.70
8.29
8.08
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
%
Aboriginal
2.7
3.2
4.0
1.9
4.9
7.0
1.4
1.8
4.7
2.0
1.6
3.2
0.7
3.2
5.5
4.9
2.4
1.6
3.5
5.8
5.8
3.7
2.5
4.8
16.3
2.2
2.5
17.7
11.8
18.4
6.9
3.0
7.4
13.9
2.7
2.7
10.8
6.0
6.0
14.6
9.4
5.5
19.5
2.9
8.6
54.7
31.8
2.5
8.9
21.6
17.0
2.2
19.7
36.6
2.0
35.5
-
-
-
% Low
Income
12.7
12.1
13.5
15.0
11.3
17.1
11.0
10.7
16.1
17.9
18.8
15.8
23.9
6.5
13.3
14.2
13.1
26.4
14.4
16.4
15.2
11.4
11.9
14.5
17.3
12.9
17.5
17.6
10.4
7.4
15.8
22.2
11.1
13.9
13.1
14.7
10.3
14.0
14.8
13.7
14.3
17.9
11.6
15.8
14.2
10.9
17.7
13.6
16.3
13.4
17.1
17.8
9.1
10.9
27.0
18.3
-
-
-
% Males,
No Unpaid
Child Care
64.4
65.9
70.2
65.7
69.9
66.9
69.6
62.0
68.6
62.3
61.5
70.3
66.0
68.9
67.7
69.8
62.4
68.7
67.9
63.2
76.7
62.4
64.0
69.8
65.5
75.6
73.0
69.4
62.8
60.1
68.1
72.8
67.6
65.5
70.0
60.3
59.9
67.9
60.5
61.8
62.1
69.4
61.3
71.4
66.1
63.6
67.8
75.0
64.8
57.2
67.0
70.5
62.1
62.6
74.4
60.7
-
-
-
British Columbia 10.00 8.57 4.4 17.8 67.4
70
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.2.2: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in BC
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Physical Health and Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
above 14.20 %
11.81 - 14.20 %
9.81 - 11.80 %
8.01 - 9.80 %
below 8.00 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(9 districts)
(11 districts)
(14 districts)
(13 districts)
(9 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Aboriginal
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
% Low
income
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information
on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from
Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and
its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
% Males, no
unpaid child
care
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Higher percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Lower percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
71

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Figure 4.2.1: Relationship Between Physical Vulnerability
and SES
unexplained
variation
33.8 % of the variation in physical
vulnerability across neighbourhoods
correlates with neighbourhood SES.
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Physical
Development
T
he share of neighbourhood population that is
Aboriginal and the share of neighbourhood families
with low income represent the two most important community
characteristics that predict physical vulnerability on the EDI.
Each accounts for about one-third of the explanation of
variation in vulnerability that can be attributed to the social
and economic characteristics of neighbourhoods.
The share of men who perform no child care, the share of
women employed in manufacturing positions, and the share
of men employed in management positions are the other
three significant neighbourhood predictors of physical
developmental delay. Compared to the predictive power of
the first two variables, these latter three constitute a second
tier of importance, accounting cumulatively for the lastthird
of the explanation that SES can offer in respect of the
variation in physical vulnerability rates across the province.
The relative importance of the Aboriginal variable in the
SES model predicting physical vulnerability raises questions
about the lingering influence of colonialism for child
development in BC. Physical development among Aboriginal
children is considered in more detail in Map 4.2.8.
Physical vulnerability stands out among the EDI scales as
being the one measure of child development that is predicted
by low-income rates.
Higher rates of physical vulnerability also co-occur in
neighbourhoods that are home to more (female) employees
who work at the periphery of the economy in manufacturing
work that does not require strong English skills or formal
education. In contrast, lower rates co-occur in communities
that have more (male) employees in secure, relatively
prestigious paid work in management.
The finding that physical vulnerabilities increase for young
children as the share of men performing no unpaid child
care in a typical week rises points to the significance of the
gender division of care work for children’s well-being.
Male caring may be especially important for children’s
physical development since gender norms mean that men’s
care routines are often geared toward sports and other outdoor
activities.
SES Pie Charts
E
ach slice in the SES pie charts on Map 4.2.2 features
one of three most important social and economic
predictors of physical vulnerability: i.e. the share of
Aboriginals; share of households with low income; and
share of males who perform no child care (see the legend
on the bottom right hand side). Recall that green slices
depict when the community has socioeconomic conditions
expected to yield low vulnerability levels; yellow shows
that the district is mid-range; and red draws attention to
districts that encounter socioeconomic conditions associated
with high rates of vulnerability.
Chameleon Communities
C
hameleon communities take on the colour of their
SES variables, and show the strongest association
between physical development and low income, male care
patterns, and the percentage of the population that is
Aboriginal.
Notice the Abbotsford, Sooke and Revelstoke school districts
are coloured green given their low rates of vulnerability and
high average scores. This colour is also consistent with the
districts’ completely green SES pie charts. This green-ongreen
pattern shows that communities which are relatively
privileged in regards to the socioeconomic characteristics
that predict vulnerability are also enjoying lower rates of
childhood risk. Advantageous SES correlating with low
vulnerability is the pattern that social scientists expect to
find. These districts are low challenge (green) chameleon
communities.
72
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Red-on-red patterns also show a strong relationship between
SES and physical vulnerability, but in the opposite direction
from the green-on-green pattern. In these cases, communities
struggle with more disadvantaged social and economic
circumstances that in turn seem to contribute to higher rates
of developmental delay. Nicola-Similkameen, Gold Trail,
Prince Rupert and Vancouver, for instance, are coloured red
to depict relatively high rates of vulnerability and low average
scores. This colour correlates with their SES pie charts,
which are predominantly red as well. These districts thus
reflect the tendencies of a high challenge (red) chameleon
community.
None of the districts considered average in respect of EDI
results on the physical scale, Alberni, Victoria and Fraser-
Cascade, have entirely yellow SES pies. Thus, on this
domain, average SES in a district is not predicting local
rates of physical vulnerability or EDI average scores that
are in the middle of the provincial range.
Janus Communities
J
anus communities stand out for having EDI vulnerability
colours that are distinctly different from their SES pie
charts. In these communities, children’s physical
development is less influenced by socioeconomic
characteristics than researchers would expect.
Some Janus communities are good news stories. For instance,
Vernon has an SES pie chart that is mostly light red; yet its
physical vulnerability is relatively low and portrayed dark
green, as is its average EDI score because it is relatively
high. Vernon thus represents a community that is overcoming
socioeconomic circumstances that are associated with higher
rates of physical vulnerability among kindergarten children.
Researchers and policy makers alike have reason to examine
Vernon closely to learn what the community is doing to
mitigate the negative influence on development otherwise
exerted by higher rates of poverty and a greater share of
men who do not perform any unpaid child care in a typical
week.
While Vernon is a good news story, the district should not
become complacent. Local constituents may wish to consider
how to tackle the relatively high poverty rates in the district,
since lowering these rates can be expected to improve
physical development in the community even further.
Similarly, residents may wish to respond to the fact that a
larger proportion of local males do not perform any child
care compared to men in other districts. Since this
socioeconomic characteristic is linked to higher physical
vulnerability levels, social planners may try to lower the
local rate of vulnerability by refocusing community dialogue
on male and female care patterns.
Conversely, low average scores on the physical domain and
high rates of developmental delay in Prince George, Quesnel,
Qualicum, Bulkley Valley, and Coast Mountains depict
districts that are relatively high challenge communities visà-vis
physical development. Among this group, Coast
Mountains, Qualicum and Bulkley Valley stand out somewhat
for having more favourable SES characteristics (two green
pie slices) than its physical vulnerability levels would lead
one to believe. These are examples of districts that are high
challenge in terms of child outcomes, even though they
confront social and economic conditions that are relatively
favourable, by provincial standards, on two of three SES
indicators featured on the map.
SES in Buffered and Wide Range Community Types
T
he Gulf Islands district comes closest to approximating
the buffered ideal type: it is a community with low
average scores for physical development, but has vulnerability
rates that place it in the middle of BC school districts. The
SES pie for this district is mixed with two (green) indicators
that co-occur with low physical vulnerability levels and a
third (red) indicator that predicts high vulnerability.
Haida Gwaii, Island North and Arrow Lakes are all districts
that can be characterized as wide ranging in terms of their
high average scores on physical development despite high
levels of vulnerability. Again, the SES pies are mixed red
and green, signalling that the districts are home to some
socioeconomic conditions that co-occur with high physical
vulnerability rates and others that correlate with low
vulnerability levels. This red-green SES pattern may help
to explain the wide range in EDI results in these districts.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
73

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Physical Vulnerability
Table 4.2.3: Physical Well-being and SES in Alberni
T
he more detailed school district maps of physical
vulnerability should be read the same way as the
previous provincial map. They show that generalizations
about districts divert attention away from variation across
neighbourhoods within districts. For instance, the midrange
yellow vulnerability score reported for the Alberni
school district on the provincial map hides the fact that two
of its regions are relatively high challenge by provincial
standards, Tofino and Central Port, while two regions are
low challenge: Ucluelet and Beaver Creek (see Map 4.2.3).
Ucluelet is worth noting because its low vulnerability rate
is better than what is predicted based on the community’s
SES (note that two of three SES pie slices are red). The
actual rate of vulnerability is 0%, compared to a predicted
rate of 16%. Sproat Lake also enjoys this favourable SES-
EDI pattern. It reports vulnerability rates that are nine
percentage points below SES expectations: the actual rate
is 5%; the predicted rate is 14%. Figure 4.2.3 depicts these
patterns visually, highlighting Ucluelet and Sproat Lake in
green because their Janus (off-diagonal) quality stands out
provincially. Table 4.2.7 lists the other neighbourhoods in
BC that achieve EDI vulnerability levels that diverge most
from expectations based solely on Census measures of local
SES.
By contrast, Central Port in Alberni is an excellent example
of a high challenge red chameleon neighbourhood. Its high
(red) vulnerability rate and low (red) average score are
consistent with its completely red SES pie chart. This colour
pattern depicts the neighbourhood’s relative social and
economic disadvantage by provincial standards with respect
to indicators that associate with higher levels of physical
vulnerability at kindergarten age.
EDI (2002, 2003)
Socioeconomic data 2
Neighbourhood
EDI children Percent Average
surveyed (n) 1 % % Low
vulnerable score Aboriginal Income
Ucluelet
57 0 9.06 21.0 10.8
Beaver Creek Road
Sproat Lake
North Port
Cherry Creek
South Port
Tofino - Ahousat
Central Port
75
38
124
33
117
43
139
4.00
5.26
7.26
9.09
10.26
11.90
19.42
8.97
8.64
8.77
8.58
8.63
8.47
8.40
9.4
21.1
7.8
7.1
13.5
41.7
19.1
10.2
5.9
18.1
12.5
16.0
15.4
29.1
Actual rate below prediction
Actual rate above prediction
% Males,
No Unpaid
Child Care
72.2
62.2
67.6
62.9
73.1
62.8
62.0
68.1
British Columbia 10.00 8.57 4.4 17.8 67.4
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2002, 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.2.3: Physical Vulnerability in Alberni
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
16.11 %
9.28 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Ucluelet
Sproat Lake
0
5.26
16.11
14.54
16.11
9.28
74
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Gertrude
3rd Ave
10th Ave
Map 4.2.3: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Alberni
Alberni
Physical Health and Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
15.88 % and above
10.84 - 15.87 %
8.12 - 10.83 %
4.93 - 8.11 %
4.92 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Aboriginal
150
100
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
50
Tofino - Ahousat
% Low
income
% Males, no
unpaid child
care
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Higher percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Lower percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
4
Ucluelet
4
Sproat Lake
4
Beaver
Creek
A
Beaver Creek
Johnson
Stamp
(8 Neighbourhoods)
North Port
Roger
Redford
Argyle
South Port
Central
Port
A
Cherry Creek
4
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
75

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Map 4.2.4 reports EDI results on the physical scale for
Vancouver in the year 2000. While the district overall is
relatively high challenge due to low average scores and high
rates of vulnerability, this observation obscures the fact that
one Vancouver neighbourhood is low challenge based on
EDI results in that year for the physical scale — University
Lands.
Vancouver is an especially interesting district because
physical vulnerability rates in seven of its neighbourhoods
– Marpole, Grandview-Woodlands, Sunset, Riley Park, the
West End, Renfrew-Collingwood and Hastings-Sunrise –
fall among the 25 neighbourhoods in the province that report
physical vulnerability rates that are considerably higher than
what researchers would predict given local social and
economic conditions (see Table 4.2.7). Actual vulnerability
levels are between 13% and 22% higher in these
neighbourhoods than predicted (Figure 4.2.4). Grandview-
Woodlands may be especially noteworthy since its SES pie
is already entirely red. The EDI results from 2000 for this
neighbourhood therefore raise concerns that the presence
of numerous challenging socioeconomic characteristics
intersect in complex ways that may multiply their negative
influence on child development. The result may be that the
cumulative effect of the negative influence is larger than
the sum of the separate parts.
Vancouver is one of the first communities in the province
for which two rounds of the EDI have been conducted: in
February 2000 and February 2004. This means that
Vancouver is among the first places in BC where change in
the status of early child development can be assessed over
time. To this end, the second map for Vancouver (Map
4.2.5) in this section reports local EDI results for 2004,
which can be compared with the results from 2000 in the
previous map.
The period 2000-2004 saw the introduction of Federal-
Provincial transfer payments for early child development,
followed later by funding for early learning and care, under
the rubric of the National Children’s Agenda. These
arrangements, together with several other federal and
provincial initiatives, may mark the beginning of a period
of public commitment to a ‘structural advance’ for young
children in Canada. The comparison of 2000-2004 is thus
a good one because it is a period in which there was a high
level of public discourse and activity in relation to young
Table 4.2.4: Physical Well-being and SES in Vancouver, 2000
Neighbourhood
Kerrisdale
University Lands
Arbutus - Ridge
West Point Grey
Dunbar - Southlands
Kitsilano
Oakridge
Shaughnessy
Fairview
South Cambie
Victoria - Fraserview
Killarney
Downtown
Kensington - Cedar Cot.
Hastings - Sunrise
Riley Park
Mount Pleasant
Renfrew - Collingwood
West End
Sunset
Marpole
Strathcona
Grandview - Woodlands
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
69
62
77
92
157
145
56
47
70
44
226
238
50
475
335
161
179
463
46
403
104
79
259
EDI (2000)
Percent
vulnerable
4.35
4.84
9.09
9.78
10.83
13.79
16.07
17.02
17.14
18.18
21.68
21.85
24.00
28.54
30.15
30.63
31.28
31.32
34.78
36.48
36.54
40.51
45.17
Average
score
8.50
8.80
8.35
8.54
8.50
8.65
8.10
8.12
8.41
8.01
7.99
8.00
7.80
7.75
7.88
7.71
7.52
7.85
7.70
7.60
7.63
7.25
7.26
Socioeconomic data 2
%
Aboriginal
0.3
1.8
0.3
0.6
2.7
0.9
0.1
0
1.1
0.4
1.0
0.9
3.8
1.5
1.9
1.9
4.2
1.4
2.0
0.7
1.0
5.8
9.1
% Low
Income
15.7
29.7
23.3
14.4
11.7
19.0
30.3
13.2
18.4
19.8
28.0
26.1
34.6
27.4
25.7
24.4
35.7
27.3
30.4
28.5
30.5
65.1
37.7
% Males,
No Unpaid
Child Care
67.8
68.0
72.1
73.0
65.1
81.0
68.8
69.0
84.8
70.5
66.8
65.1
89.2
67.5
68.2
70.4
79.7
66.8
91.1
62.6
70.5
87.8
75.7
British Columbia 10.00 8.57 4.4 17.8 67.4
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
children. At the same time, the city of Vancouver was
changing according to policy initiatives and socioeconomic
pressures that, although indifferent to early child development,
would undoubtedly change family composition and
neighbourhood character in ways that could influence it, as
well as EDI results. Thus, the comparison of EDI from
2000-2004 reflects all the changes in Vancouver as an
ecosystem for early child development, not just those things
that have been consciously done on behalf of them.
In order to make reliable inferences about child development
over time, data from Vancouver and all other districts that
will soon participate in round two of EDI data collection
should be examined several ways using the scores that
individual children receive for each scale, average
76
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.2.4: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Vancouver, 2000
Vancouver
2000
Physical Health and Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
15.88 % and above
10.84 - 15.87 %
8.12 - 10.83 %
4.93 - 8.11 %
4.92 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Aboriginal
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Actual rate below prediction
Actual rate above prediction
% Low
income
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
1,000
500
250
UBC
% Males, no
unpaid child
care
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Higher percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Lower percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Marine
15.35 %
University
Lands
English
W. Point
Grey
Figure 4.2.4: Physical Vulnerability in Vancouver
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
12.93 %
Dunbar
Bay
Dunbar-
Southlands
Marine
Kitsilano
Macdonald
Arbutus
Ridge
W 4th Ave
Arbutus
Kerrisdale
W Broadway
W 12th Ave
W 41st Ave
West End
Granville
Davie
Oak
Georgia
Cambie
B u r
r a r d
Powell
E Broadway
E 12th Ave
I n l e
E 41st Ave
W 49th Ave E 49th Ave
Granville
W 70th Ave
Fairview
Shaughnessy
South
Cambie
Oak
Oakridge
Marpole
Downtown
Cambie
Marine
Mt Pleasant
Main
Riley
Park
Main
Strathcona
Fraser
Sunset
Clark
Knight
N o r t h
t
E Hastings
Commercial
Kensington-
Cedar Cottage
(23 Neighbourhoods)
Grandview-
Woodlands
A r
Victoria
m
Nanaimo
Victoria-
Fraserview
E 1st Ave
Kingsway
McGill
Renfrew
Marine
Rupert
F r a s e r R
Hastings-
Sunrise
Grandview
i v
e
Rupert
r
1
Renfrew-
Collingwood
Killarney
neighbourhood scores, and neighbourhood vulnerability
rates. Readers should note that clear evidence of positive
change over time will be indicated by:
an upward shift in the distribution of individual
scores across the entire district,
increasing average scores across neighbourhoods,
1
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
17.07 %
13.92 %
decreasing inequality in average scores across
neighbourhoods,
21.34 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
22.38 %
Predicted
Rate
Difference
decreasing proportions of vulnerable children
across neighbourhoods,
Marpole
Grandview - Woodlands
Sunset
Riley Park
West End
Renfrew - Collingwood
Hastings - Sunrise
36.54
45.17
36.48
30.63
34.78
31.32
30.15
14.16
22.85
15.14
13.56
19.43
17.40
17.19
22.38
22.32
21.34
17.07
15.35
13.92
12.93
decreasing inequality in the proportion of
vulnerable children across neighbourhoods.
Conversely, the reverse will signal clear evidence of negative
change.
77

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Figure 4.2.5 indicates that there has been an upward shift
in the distribution of individual scores on the physical
development scale across all of Vancouver (the dark blue
columns are taller for scores of 9-10 and shorter for scores
of 5-8 compared to the light blue columns). Similarly, when
we compare the data tables for the two Vancouver maps,
we see an increasing average score for Vancouver
neighbourhoods between 2000 and 2004. The low average
score in 2004 is 8.02, compared to a low of 7.25 in 2000;
whereas the 2004 high is 9.18 compared to 8.80 in 2000.
There is also decreasing inequality in average scores between
Vancouver neighbourhoods. The range in 2004 is 1.16 EDI
points (9.18 - 8.02) compared to a range of average scores
of 1.55 in 2000 (8.8 - 7.25).
Map 4.2.6 shows the distribution of improvement in physical
health and well-being by neighbourhood. A quick inspection
shows that the improvement tended to be greater in the
inner-city neighbourhoods than the West Side, with the rest
of town in between. In all but one neighbourhood, Kerrisdale,
there was a decreasing proportion of children falling below
the vulnerability cut-off.
So far, physical health and well-being has met four of the
five criteria for unequivocal improvement. The final criterion,
however, is not as obvious. Whether or not relative
vulnerability has increased or decreased depends upon how
one looks at the data. The absolute range has fallen from
(45.2% - 4.4% =) 40.8% in 2000 to (23.8% - 1.6% =) 22.2%
in 2004, but the relative difference in the proportion of
vulnerable children across neighbourhoods has increased
from 10-fold to nearly 15-fold.
Table 4.2.5: Physical Well-being and SES in Vancouver, 2004
Neighbourhood
Oakridge
University Lands
Kitsilano
Arbutus - Ridge
Fairview
West Point Grey
Shaughnessy
Downtown
Kerrisdale
Dunbar - Southlands
West End
South Cambie
Marpole
Victoria - Fraserview
Killarney
Hastings - Sunrise
Renfrew - Collingwood
Kensington - Cedar Cot.
Sunset
Mount Pleasant
Strathcona
Riley Park
Grandview - Woodlands
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
63
67
117
54
84
82
55
78
52
178
56
30
133
237
183
285
387
429
369
170
64
108
180
EDI (2004)
Percent
vulnerable
1.64
3.08
3.57
5.56
7.32
7.41
7.55
7.69
8.16
8.52
9.09
10.34
11.20
11.49
11.93
13.72
14.32
18.64
19.22
22.42
23.44
23.58
23.84
Average
score
9.07
9.15
9.15
9.02
8.59
8.90
8.43
8.95
9.18
8.71
8.77
8.67
8.85
8.53
8.62
8.50
8.36
8.34
8.21
8.10
8.07
8.02
8.06
Socioeconomic data 2
%
Aboriginal
0.1
1.8
0.9
0.3
1.1
0.6
0
3.8
0.3
2.7
2.0
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.9
1.4
1.5
0.7
4.2
5.8
1.9
9.1
% Low
Income
30.3
29.7
19.0
23.3
18.4
14.4
13.2
34.6
15.7
11.7
30.4
19.8
30.5
28.0
26.1
25.7
27.3
27.4
28.5
35.7
65.1
24.4
37.7
% Males,
No Unpaid
Child Care
68.8
68.0
81.0
72.1
84.8
73.0
69.0
89.2
67.8
65.1
91.1
70.5
70.5
66.8
65.1
68.2
66.8
67.5
62.6
79.7
87.8
70.4
75.7
British Columbia 10.00 8.57 4.4 17.8 67.4
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
In summary, there is considerable evidence that the physical
health and well-being of kindergarten children improved
between 2000 and 2004, although neighbourhood inequality
in vulnerability rates cannot be said to have decreased.
While we have EDI data at two time points for the period
under question in Vancouver, we only have SES Census
data from 2001. This makes it challenging to analyze the
influence of changes in neighbourhood SES over time on
child development patterns. That said, insofar as low-income
status is one of the most important predictors of physical
vulnerability, the finding that vulnerability levels dropped
considerably in the Downtown Eastside is somewhat
surprising given that provincial reductions to income
Figure 4.2.5: Average Physical Well-being Scores in
Vancouver, 2000 and 2004
30 %
20 %
10 %
0 %
City-wide distribution of individual
scores on physical scale of the EDI
2000
2004
2.4 1.3
6.0
3.2
14.4
7.5
23.4
17.0
30.7 30.1
23.1
below 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10
41.0
78
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.2.5: Physical Well-being and Socioeconomic Status in Vancouver, 2004
Vancouver
2004
Physical Health and Well-being
Percent Vulnerable
15.88 % and above
10.84 - 15.87 %
8.12 - 10.83 %
4.93 - 8.11 %
4.92 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Aboriginal
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
by 20 or more points
by 10 - 20 points
by 0 - 10 points
by 0 - 10 points
% Low
income
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
1,000
500
250
UBC
% Males, no
unpaid child
care
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Higher percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of residents report Aboriginal
Status, Low-income status. Lower percentage of
males perform no unpaid child care.
Marine
University
Lands
Map 4.2.6: Changes in Vancouver Physical Vulnerability
Rates, 2000 and 2004
Vulnerability rate dropped
Vulnerability rate increased
English
W. Point
Grey
Dunbar
Bay
Dunbar-
Southlands
Marine
Kitsilano
Macdonald
Arbutus
Ridge
W 4th Ave
Arbutus
Kerrisdale
W Broadway
W 12th Ave
W 41st Ave
West End
Granville
Davie
Oak
Georgia
Cambie
B u r
r a r d
Powell
E Broadway
E 12th Ave
I n l e
E 41st Ave
W 49th Ave E 49th Ave
Granville
W 70th Ave
Fairview
Shaughnessy
South
Cambie
Oak
Oakridge
Marpole
Downtown
Cambie
Marine
Mt Pleasant
Main
Riley
Park
Main
Strathcona
Fraser
Sunset
Clark
Knight
N o r t h
t
E Hastings
Commercial
Kensington-
Cedar Cottage
(23 Neighbourhoods)
Grandview-
Woodlands
A r
Victoria
m
Nanaimo
Victoria-
Fraserview
E 1st Ave
Kingsway
McGill
Renfrew
Marine
Rupert
F r a s e r R
Hastings-
Sunrise
Grandview
i v
e
Rupert
Killarney
r
1
Renfrew-
Collingwood
assistance payments and child care funding during the four
year period further limited the material resources available
to very poor families in these neighbourhoods and across
the province (Klein and Long 2003; Kershaw 2004). EDI
evidence thus suggests that the overall ecosystem for early
child development in Vancouver evolved between 2000 and
2004 to buffer families with young children in poor
neighbourhoods from the adverse impact on physical
development that research would otherwise predict to
accompany reductions to welfare and child care. Much
more research is necessary to determine the sources of this
buffering effect.
1
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
by 10 - 20 points
by 20 or more points
79

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Table 4.2.7: Physical Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
Below Predictions
Above Predictions
District
#
22
70
72
36
59
36
41
53
23
20
71
38
36
41
79
36
70
68
68
41
57
43
79
71
61
Neighbourhood Name
Vernon - Central
Ucluelet
Campbell River - Centre
Gateway
Dawson Creek Centre
Newton
Metrotown
Osoyoos
Bankhead
Castlegar
West Courtenay
Cambie
Whalley South
Burnaby Heights
Maple Bay
Cindrich
Sproat Lake
Northfield
Nanaimo - Downtown
Willingdon Heights
North Highlands
Como Lake / Poirier
Duncan - West
Comox West
Mayfair
Actual
Rate
0.00
0.00
3.03
8.11
2.08
4.82
8.21
2.20
4.48
0.00
6.90
4.17
4.05
2.00
0.00
4.35
5.26
3.51
9.41
3.45
0.00
1.87
8.00
4.44
6.38
Predicted
Rate
16.81
16.11
18.37
19.95
13.67
15.97
19.12
12.44
14.65
9.68
16.49
13.75
13.63
11.55
9.55
13.78
14.54
12.65
18.55
12.52
8.97
10.78
16.86
13.23
15.04
Difference
-16.81
-16.11
-15.34
-11.84
-11.59
-11.15
-10.91
-10.24
-10.17
-9.68
-9.59
-9.58
-9.58
-9.55
-9.55
-9.43
-9.28
-9.14
-9.14
-9.07
-8.97
-8.91
-8.86
-8.79
-8.66
District
#
39
39
57
39
23
52
75
61
39
33
39
23
36
79
48
23
39
39
69
71
23
28
35
42
68
Neighbourhood Name
Marpole
Grandview - Woodlands
South Fort George
Sunset
Chief Tomat
Pr Rupert - Centre
Mission - Downtown
Esquimalt
Riley Park
Chilliwack - South
West End
Peachland
Bridgeview
Chemainus - Crofton
Pemberton
Belgo / Quigley
Renfrew - Collingwood
Hastings - Sunrise
Errington / Nanoose
Glacierview / Vanier
Westbank
Quesnel West
Rural South Langley
Port Hammond North
Westwood
Actual
Rate
36.54
45.17
43.04
36.48
31.58
47.73
35.42
31.94
30.63
31.25
34.78
27.27
30.36
25.81
27.96
25.00
31.32
30.15
22.73
25.86
25.00
27.54
21.31
18.09
20.00
Predicted
Rate
14.16
22.85
21.18
15.14
10.79
28.22
16.53
14.12
13.56
15.08
19.43
12.21
15.40
10.86
13.36
10.71
17.40
17.19
10.12
13.29
12.75
15.38
9.78
6.57
8.77
Difference
+22.38
+22.32
+21.86
+21.34
+20.79
+19.51
+18.89
+17.82
+17.07
+16.17
+15.35
+15.06
+14.96
+14.95
+14.60
+14.29
+13.92
+12.96
+12.61
+12.57
+12.25
+12.16
+11.53
+11.52
+11.23
80
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

81
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Physical Development Among Aboriginal
Children in BC
R
ecall that the most important predictor of physical
vulnerability among children is the share of
Aboriginals in the neighbourhood. It is therefore important
to focus specifically on developmental trends among
Aboriginal children. This focus is overdue in the literature,
since Burton and Jarrett (2000, 1115) observe in their review
of neighbourhood effects research that Aboriginal families
in North America are visibly absent in existing quantitative
and ethnographic studies.
As of February 2004, the Human Early Learning Partnership
had completed EDI evaluations on approximately 2,950
Aboriginal children around the province. These represent
a complete sample of those in public kindergarten, but a
minority of those in kindergarten classes on reserve.
Nonetheless, we believe that our sample represents at least
80% of Aboriginal kindergarten children in BC. The
following analyses are based upon the 47 geographic school
districts where there were sufficient numbers of Aboriginal
children picked up on the EDI to report average scores and
vulnerability rates without compromising confidentiality.
Maps 4.2.8, 4.2.9 and 4.2.10 present parallel provincial
vulnerability maps of physical health and well-being: the
latter for the whole population; and the first two for Aboriginal
children alone. The data presented in each map corresponds
to a column in Table 4.2.8. Map 4.2.10 in the bottom right
corner repeats the map displayed in the previous chapter
and shows that school district level physical vulnerability
rates among the whole population range from 4.5% to 27.1%.
Map 4.2.9, in turn, reports vulnerability rates specifically
for Aboriginal children in each school district, using the
same colour-coding as is used for the entire population.
Almost all of the districts in this map are coloured red,
signalling that Aboriginal children within most districts
encounter vulnerability rates typical of the 12 school districts
in the province that report the highest vulnerability rates for
the population in its entirety. Low vulnerability rates among
Aboriginal children in Comox Valley are a notable exception.
The largest of the three maps also focuses exclusively on
Aboriginal children. But rather than compare Aboriginal
Table 4.2.8: Physical Well-being and Aboriginal Children
SD# District name
71 Comox Valley
81 Fort Nelson
6 Rocky Mountain
34 Abbotsford
72 Campbell River
47 Powell River
87 Stikine
36 Surrey
22 Vernon
53 Okanagan - Similkameen
35 Langley
8 Kootenay Lake
44 North Vancouver
74 Gold Trail
37 Delta
92 Nisga'a
60 Peace River North
70 Alberni
43 Coquitlam
46 Sunshine Coast
67 Okanagan - Skaha
42 Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
62 Sooke
61 Greater Victoria
27 Cariboo - Chilcotin
5 Southeast Kootenay
23 Central Okanagan
33 Chilliwack
91 Nechako Lakes
78 Fraser - Cascade
73 Kamloops - Thompson
54 Bulkley Valley
59 Peace River South
40 New Westminster
82 Coast Mountains
41 Burnaby
50 Haida Gwaii
57 Prince George
28 Quesnel
68 Nanaimo
58 Nicola - Similkameen
48 Howe Sound 1
85 Island North
75 Mission
52 Prince Rupert
79 Cowichan Valley
39 Vancouver 1
10 Arrow Lakes
19 Revelstoke
20 Kootenay - Columbia
38 Richmond
45 West Vancouver
49 Central Coast
51 Boundary
63 Saanich
64 Gulf Islands
69 Qualicum
83 North Okanagan - Shuswap
84 Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
9.52
10.00
10.64
12.61
12.87
14.29
14.63
14.66
15.38
16.13
16.28
16.67
16.67
16.67
17.39
17.86
18.18
18.42
18.63
19.05
19.15
19.44
19.44
21.13
21.25
21.92
21.93
23.33
24.14
24.24
24.65
25.00
25.61
26.09
26.92
27.27
28.13
30.06
30.43
31.00
32.69
33.33
33.33
34.62
38.14
40.00
49.31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
9.52
10.00
10.64
12.61
12.87
14.29
14.63
14.66
15.38
16.13
16.28
16.67
16.67
16.67
17.39
17.86
18.18
18.42
18.63
19.05
19.15
19.44
19.44
21.13
21.25
21.92
21.93
23.33
24.14
24.24
24.65
25.00
25.61
26.09
26.92
27.27
28.13
30.06
30.43
31.00
32.69
33.33
33.33
34.62
38.14
40.00
49.31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
Population
Percent
Vulnerable
9.70
10.96
6.56
9.50
6.82
12.30
14.04
8.27
7.34
9.77
9.88
8.57
6.36
14.17
7.27
-
10.81
10.00
8.44
9.96
13.54
11.78
9.80
10.50
11.68
9.27
11.70
9.73
13.22
10.80
11.23
12.27
12.58
11.39
15.15
9.65
18.03
12.89
14.86
12.92
15.63
15.10
17.65
12.47
27.11
13.55
14.23
17.50
4.49
4.69
8.71
7.19
-
5.03
9.27
10.05
14.80
9.50
-
British Columbia 22.06 22.06 10.00
82
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.2.8: Percentage of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Physical Well-being Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Physical Well-being
Percent Vulnerable,
Aboriginal Colour Codes
above 28.13 %
23.34 - 28.13 %
18.64 - 23.33 %
15.39 - 18.63 %
below 15.39 %
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(10 districts)
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
(10 districts)
(9 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.2.9: Physical Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children
Map 4.2.10: Physical Vulnerability: All Children
Physical Well-being
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 14.20 %
11.81 - 14.20 %
9.81 - 11.80 %
8.01 - 9.80 %
below 8.00 %
83

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
children to the broader population, this map directs attention
to the range of vulnerability between the Aboriginal children
in each district. The range stretches from less than 10%
vulnerable in Comox to nearly five times higher in Vancouver
(49.3%). The five-fold level of inequality in district level
physical vulnerability rates for Aboriginal children is of the
same order of magnitude as for BC children as a whole:
the 27.1% vulnerability rate in Prince Rupert is over six
times greater than the rate reported in Revelstoke.
Table 4.2.9: Neighbourhood Range in Physical Vulnerability:
Aboriginal Children and All Children
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Total Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
9.5 %
49.3 %
0 %
47.7 %
However, the comparison by school district is an awkward
one. For the population as a whole, the school district
typically includes several hundred to several thousand
children from all walks of life while the Aboriginal children
within a school district represent 25 to 200 children, usually
with common or similar backgrounds. In other words,
Aboriginal children within a given school district are more
comparable to neighbourhood groupings than to whole
school districts.
We therefore treat the group of Aboriginal children in school
districts as ‘neighbourhoods’ for analytical purposes.
Aligning neighbourhoods with cultural groups is a relatively
common practice in the neighbourhood effects literature
among researchers who employ ethnographic methods to
study how SES influences development (for a review of this
literature see Burton and Jarrett 2000, 1117). Defining
neighbourhood as culture directs researchers’ attention to
symbolic meanings, including actions, beliefs, language,
gossip, and rituals of daily life in a geographic space, in
addition to the various systemic social patterns that may
oppress and/or empower group members.
When we analyze the group of Aboriginal children in school
districts as neighbourhoods, the range in vulnerability levels
that stretches from 9.5% to 49.3% is broadly comparable to
the range between all 465 neighbourhoods for the whole
EDI sample in BC — 0% to 47.7% (see Figure 4.2.9). More
than any other observation, this comparison underscores the
state of Aboriginal ECD in the province today. It shows
that the range of vulnerability for Aboriginal children across
communities is huge, and largely overlaps the range for the
population as a whole. Thus, we return to the theme
introduced in chapter 1 to ask the question: With respect to
physical development, why are some communities better
places for Aboriginal children to grow up in than others?
84
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

The Queensway Community Garden: An Innovative Community Asset
E
DI results in 2002 indicated that children in
the South Fort George area of Prince George
were experiencing vulnerability levels above what
would be predicted based on the neighbourhood’s
socioeconomic status. Other data showed that the
cost of nutritious food for a family of four would
consume up to 25% of a family’s weekly income
in this area; and that the number of children living
below the low-income cut-off in Prince George is
above the national average.
In response, the Queensway Community Garden
was created in 2003 to enhance local emergency
food services and to grow produce for agency
hamper baskets and community kitchens. The
project is a multi-agency and public community
garden located in the Veteran’s Land Act/South
Fort George area of Prince George. Four local
groups championed and cultivated the garden: The
Prince George Native Friendship Centre, Porter
Street Neighbourhood House, Community Gardens
Prince George Society, and Make Children First.
After a successful first year, this partnership has
grown to include the Prince George Métis Elders’
Society, the Prince George Dakelh Elders’ Society,
the Salvation Army and the Northern Health
Authority Community Mental Health Services.
The mandate of the Community Garden has evolved
to become much more than the provision of
nutritious food for vulnerable children and families
in the area. The garden also promotes increased
social interaction, spiritual nourishment, community
cohesion, and a sense of responsibility for
neighbours in need. This broad social mandate
reflects that the garden was driven by a local vision
for an outdoor space where people could work
together to ensure the availability of and access to
healthy and affordable food. Locals regard a key
strength of the project to rest in the fact that it
enables the whole community to get involved to
increase availability and access to nutritious food
for its members; and it is common to find
community members of all ages participating in
garden cultivation.
At the Harvest Celebration “over 240
people visited the garden, including many
[community members] who usually visit
the soup bus to supplement their families'
weekend meals. While there, children,
youth, adults and Elders pulled potatoes
out of the ground, picked carrots and peas,
ate chili prepared with vegetables out of
the garden and connected with one another.
It was a wonderful opportunity for
[community members] dependent on
emergency foods to participate in a healthy,
positive and respectful event that
introduced them to connection with the
land, life cycles and growing foods.”
Emma Faulkner,
Native Friendship Centre
The Queensway Community Garden is a
community asset that was developed through a
local coalition informed by research about child
health indicators. It is now regarded locally as a
sustainable community resource.
For more information contact:
Danielle Sykes, Nutrition Educator,
Make Children First Initiative
Member, Queensway Community Garden Planning
Committee
3rd Floor, Northern Interior Health Unit
1444 Edmonton Street
Prince George, BC
V2M 6W5
Phone: (250) 649-7072; Fax: (250) 565-7386
Email: Danielle.sykes@northernhealth.ca
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
85

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.3 Socioeconomic Status and Social Competence
Socioeconomic Status and Social Competence
A
s with the physical EDI scale, variation in the level
of social vulnerability again correlates with the social
and economic characteristics of BC neighbourhoods. Four
neighbourhood SES indicators predict social vulnerability
(see Table 4.3.1). Collectively, they explain 21% of the
variation in rates of social competence that we see in BC
(Figure 4.3.1). This result means that one-fifth of the range
in social vulnerability levels between neighbourhoods can
be accounted for by the different social and economic
circumstances that characterize neighbourhoods.
The association between SES and social competence is more
modest than is the connection between SES and any other
EDI scale, although it is just slightly less than that of SES
and emotional maturity. This finding reveals that
neighbourhood characteristics are more strongly related to
physical and early learning domains than social or emotional
behaviour — a point that Curtis et al. (2004, 1918) also
stress. The relatively modest relationship between SES and
early socio-emotional development may in part be explained
by a life-course analysis, since Boyle and Lipman (2002,
379) report that neighbourhood disadvantage exerts greater
adverse influence on behavioural problems among
adolescents than young children.
Table 4.3.1: Significant SES Predictors of Social
Vulnerability
Variable
(r 2 = 0.209)
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
Importance
Score
% Lone-parent Families
37.8
Percentage of families headed by
a single parent
Median Family Income
26.8
Median annual family
income
% Males, Driving
19.6
Percentage of males who drive
to work
% No Unpaid Housework 15.5
Percentage of adults performing
no unpaid housework
Table 4.3.2: Social Competence and SES in BC
SD# District
19
22
6
45
28
72
8
20
70
37
83
43
60
27
58
35
62
51
79
36
44
91
81
53
61
69
48
57
5
23
73
46
34
33
71
59
41
42
67
38
68
64
47
75
82
78
74
63
39
40
54
50
85
52
10
87
49
84
92
Revelstoke
Vernon
Rocky Mountain
West Vancouver
Quesnel
Campbell River
Kootenay Lake
Kootenay - Columbia
Alberni
Delta
N. Okanagan - Shuswap
Coquitlam
Peace River North
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Nicola - Similkameen
Langley
Sooke
Boundary
Cowichan Valley
Surrey
North Vancouver
Nechako Lakes
Fort Nelson
Okanagan - Similkameen
Greater Victoria
Qualicum
Howe Sound
Prince George
Southeast Kootenay
Central Okanagan
Kamloops - Thompson
Sunshine Coast
Abbotsford
Chilliwack
Comox Valley
Peace River South
Burnaby
Maple Ridge - Pitt Mdws.
Okanagan - Skaha
Richmond
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Gulf Islands
Powell River
Mission
Coast Mountains
Fraser - Cascade
Gold Trail
Saanich
Vancouver
New Westminster
Bulkley Valley
Haida Gwaii
Island North
Prince Rupert
Arrow Lakes
Stikine
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI
Percent
Vulnerable
4.49
4.52
5.03
5.04
5.09
5.73
6.39
6.50
6.56
6.69
6.72
6.85
6.88
7.26
7.50
7.57
7.66
7.78
7.86
7.96
8.00
8.08
8.22
8.23
8.24
8.24
8.40
8.88
9.03
9.03
9.04
9.96
10.07
10.23
10.45
11.01
11.01
11.15
11.37
11.45
11.56
11.62
11.67
12.18
12.25
12.26
12.61
12.86
12.88
12.90
13.41
14.75
15.19
15.63
17.50
21.05
-
-
-
Average
Score
8.96
8.53
8.55
8.53
8.47
8.67
8.47
8.85
8.57
8.32
8.52
8.53
8.14
8.23
7.91
8.45
8.25
8.56
8.59
8.38
8.33
8.58
7.70
8.28
8.39
8.22
7.61
8.27
8.37
8.21
8.14
8.33
8.27
8.14
8.18
8.35
8.06
8.15
8.04
8.10
8.10
8.23
8.15
8.08
8.23
8.10
7.92
8.10
7.98
8.03
7.97
7.93
8.23
7.56
8.29
7.38
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
% Loneparent
Families
15.0
17.1
13.2
10.7
17.3
17.0
15.9
14.3
17.5
12.3
13.5
14.7
13.1
15.5
16.7
14.2
15.6
14.5
15.8
15.4
14.7
15.0
17.4
11.6
18.1
10.9
13.7
18.1
13.8
14.2
16.6
14.1
14.0
16.8
15.8
15.9
15.9
15.5
15.4
13.9
17.8
13.0
15.3
18.1
17.1
18.0
17.6
10.1
17.0
16.9
13.6
22.1
17.6
21.9
16.2
26.4
-
-
-
Median
Family
Income
57,111
47,619
52,345
89,790
51,679
52,103
45,462
58,133
50,090
70,570
44,366
62,444
60,983
50,101
46,947
63,833
57,920
43,103
52,029
55,881
69,997
54,226
69,045
36,694
56,676
47,803
62,712
60,637
56,992
51,136
54,373
49,388
51,516
49,529
50,551
55,738
51,571
62,400
47,205
52,454
50,226
47,801
50,268
51,603
58,490
41,346
40,471
67,140
51,382
55,399
61,352
54,374
57,045
55,562
42,675
42,537
-
-
-
% Males,
Driving
76.0
84.5
81.2
83.1
87.0
74.8
77.5
83.3
77.8
87.1
84.9
85.9
81.7
85.0
79.8
88.3
80.9
80.4
82.5
83.8
78.9
81.8
77.3
75.5
64.1
85.0
73.5
84.7
71.3
84.4
83.5
75.1
86.0
85.7
76.8
82.3
78.0
85.4
81.7
83.5
82.4
80.0
80.1
85.8
83.1
77.7
72.7
83.5
64.4
71.8
77.8
61.9
69.4
72.6
83.1
71.0
-
-
-
British Columbia 10.00 8.19 15.5 54,840 78.7
86
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.3.2: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in BC
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Social Competence
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
above 12.26 %
10.46 - 12.26 %
8.11 - 10.45 %
6.81 - 8.10 %
below 6.80 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(10 districts)
(11 districts)
(13 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Lone-parent
families
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Median family
income
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
% Males,
Driving
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information
on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from
Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and
its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of lone-parent families, lower
incomes. Lower proportion of males who drive to
work.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of lone-parent families, higher
incomes. Higher proportion of males who drive to
work.
87

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Figure 4.3.1: Relationship Between Social Vulnerability
and SES
dysfunction that manifests itself in part through adults
devoting less time to planning or organization in domestic
spaces.
unexplained
variation
20.9 % of the variation in social
vulnerability across neighbourhoods
correlates with neighbourhood SES.
Chameleon Communities
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Social
Development
F
amily structure seems to be the most important factor
affecting social vulnerability. The proportion of lone
parent families is the most important predictor of social
incompetence, accounting for more than one-third of the
explanatory power that SES yields in respect of variation
in social vulnerability rates across neighbourhoods. This
family structure indicator is joined by the variable that tracks
the share of men who drive to work. Recall that this variable
intercorrelates strongly with the proportion of the population
that is married. Young children thus appear more susceptible
to social vulnerabilities in neighbourhoods where
responsibility for parenting falls to parents, typically mothers,
who cannot count on a partner for support or respite from
caregiving.
Social vulnerability does not appear to concentrate primarily
in low-income homes. While income dynamics matter, it
is the income level of households in the middle of the
neighbourhood range that predicts vulnerability on this scale.
As the median household income rises in a neighbourhood,
the rate of social vulnerability declines. This finding suggests
that programs which target economically disadvantaged
homes will risk missing the majority of socially vulnerable
children.
The share of adults who perform no unpaid housework in
a neighbourhood also predicts social vulnerability. The
meaning of this variable is more difficult to determine. One
interpretation is that families at risk of low-income status
(as Census data indicate these adults are more likely to be)
require parents to work longer hours in the paid labour
market and thus have less time to spend in domestic spaces
with their children. A second interpretation may build on
Wilson’s (1987) contributions to the literature to interpret
lower rates of unpaid household work as a signal of
P
ie charts on Map 4.3.2 feature the three most important
SES predictors of social vulnerability: the share of
lone-parent families, median family income and the share
of men who drive to work. Table 4.3.2 presents the same
information in more detail.
West Vancouver, Kootenay-Columbia, Delta, Coquitlam,
and Langley all enjoy privileged socioeconomic conditions
and have low vulnerability rates matched by high average
scores on the social scale to show for it. Look for the green
SES pie on a green neighbourhood background to discern
this SES-EDI pattern.
Red-on-red patterns suggest that adverse social and economic
characteristics contribute to higher rates of social vulnerability
and lower district average scores. Stikine, Gold Trail, and
Fraser-Cascade districts are good examples of this trend.
There are no yellow-on-yellow patterns on Map 4.3.2 or the
accompanying table. This finding reveals that districts in
the province that report average EDI results confront a mixed
bag of favourable (green) and disadvantaged (red)
socioeconomic characteristics, rather than characteristics
which are consistently in the middle of the provincial range.
Janus Communities
T
he Alberni district stands out for having a low (green)
vulnerability rate and high (green) average score in
spite of greater socioeconomic risk (red SES pie). Vernon
and Campbell River also resemble this pattern. Community
development practitioners and policy makers would be well
advised to explore what these districts are doing to minimize
the risk that more difficult socioeconomic circumstances
typically pose for families with children.
88
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

These Janus districts remind us that communities which are
low challenge with respect to child outcomes may
nevertheless be high challenge in regards to the social and
economic conditions they present for the children who live
there.
Saanich represents the opposite scenario with its green pie
on a red background. This contrasting colour pattern signals
that favourable SES is not translating into minimal
vulnerability or a high average score. The Saanich district
thus also represents a valuable opportunity for policy learning
if research with and by local residents can identify dynamics
that are interfering with their ability to capitalize on relatively
advantaged conditions that should otherwise create positive
child development outcomes on the social scale.
SES in Buffered and Wide Range Community Types
N
icola-Similkameen and Peace River North represent
buffered communities by reporting low average
scores for social development without high rates of social
vulnerability. Peace River North has relatively favourable
socioeconomic conditions. Nicola-Similkameen does not.
There is no obvious relationship between SES and buffering
patterns at the school district level as they pertain to social
vulnerability.
Peace River South exemplifies the wide range ideal type.
The district enjoys relatively high average scores for social
development, but also reports high vulnerability rates. SES
in the district is mixed.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Communities that report wide range results for the social or
emotional scales may wish to engage with research by Boyle
and Lipman (2002, 387) who find that “living in a family
that is relatively better off socioeconomically than its
neighbours may reduce the risk of behavioural problems
whereas living in a family that is relatively worse off
socieconomically than its neighbours may increase risk of
behavioural problems.” This finding is consistent with the
competition and relative disadvantage approaches to
interpreting neighbourhood effects on development that
were discussed in Part 1 of this chapter.
89

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Social Vulnerability
Table 4.3.3: Social Competence and SES in Quesnel
Q
uesnel is a low challenge district on this scale when
considered in its entirety. But this observation
overlooks that the Quesnel West neighbourhood has high
rates of social vulnerability (see Map 4.3.3). In fact, the
18-percentage-point variation in vulnerability rates across
neighbourhoods in this region documented in Table 4.3.3
surpasses the 17-point range we witness across districts in
the entire province (see Table 4.3.2).
It is interesting to consider why Quesnel West suffers higher
vulnerability levels when Quesnel North does not, despite
the fact that the latter also encounters relatively challenging
social and economic conditions that typically correspond
with higher vulnerability rates. The reported rate of
vulnerability in Quesnel North is 0%, whereas the rate
predicted based on neighbourhood SES was 10.5%. Nazko-
Blackwater also surpasses expectations based on its
socioeconomic status. Like Quesnel North, its reported rate
is again 0%, whereas the predicted rate was higher at 8%
(see Figure 4.3.3). These results locate both areas in Quesnel
among the 25 neighbourhoods across BC that report social
vulnerability rates which fall furthest below predictions
based on local SES (see Table 4.3.5).
District name
Nazko / Blackwater
Quesnel North
Quesnel South
Quesnel West
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
48
34
124
69
EDI (2003)
Percent
vulnerable
0
0
1.61
17.65
Average
score
8.62
8.47
8.70
7.90
Socioeconomic data 2
% Loneparent
Families
14.4
18.7
14.0
26.0
Median
Family
Income
50,237
49,020
58,465
43,366
% Males,
Driving
90.5
85.2
87.9
85.0
British Columbia 10.00 8.19 15.5 54,840 78.7
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.3.3: Social Vulnerability in Quesnel
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
10.51 %
7.83 %
Actual rate below prediction
Actual rate above prediction
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Quesnel North
Nazko/Blackwater
0
0
10.51
7.83
10.51
7.83
90
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.3.3: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in Quesnel
Social Competence
Percent Vulnerable
Socioeconomic Status
% Loneparent
families
Quesnel
14.16 % and above
9.76 - 14.15 %
6.98 - 9.75 %
4.26 - 6.97 %
4.25 % and below
Socioeconomic Variables
1,000
500
250
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Median
Family Income
% Males,
Driving
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of lone-parent families, lower
incomes. Lower proportion of males who drive to work.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of lone-parent families, higher
incomes. Higher proportion of males who drive to work.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Nazko/
Blackwater
97
F r a s e r
Quesnel West
R i v e r
Quesnel North
Q u e s n e
Front St
l
R i
v e r
Red Bluff Rd
Maple Drive
(4 Neighbourhoods)
Quesnel
South
97
Dragon
Lake
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
91

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Burnaby is a relatively high challenge district due to its low
average social competence score and high rate of social
vulnerability. Within the district, Cariboo/Armstrong,
Burnaby Heights and Government Street enjoy much lower
rates of social delay (see Map. 4.3.4). Despite being a low
challenge chameleon community with a completely green
SES pie on a green background, Government Street is among
the top 25 in the province in terms of enjoying vulnerability
rates on this scale that are notably lower than predicted in
the light of local SES (Table 4.4.5): the reported rate in this
Burnaby neighbourhood is 0%, whereas the predicted rate
was over 7% (Figure 4.3.4). Local residents interested in
explaining this pattern may wish to consider the
neighbourhood resources, collective socialization and
contagion models of neighbourhood effects discussed in
Part 1 of the chapter, which collectively suggest that affluent
neighbourhoods have the potential to convey added benefits
to children in numerous ways, including those who are
relatively disadvantaged.
Burnaby South and Burnaby Mountain endure the highest
vulnerability levels in the city. The latter stands out for
reporting vulnerability rates that are well above what we
would expect based solely on its SES. The reported
vulnerability rate is 30%; the predicted rate is 10% (see
Table 4.4.5 and Figure 4.3.4).
The 30-percentage-point variation in vulnerability levels
across Burnaby neighbourhoods reminds us that the range
of vulnerability within a school district is equal to or exceeds
the variation seen across school districts throughout the
province. Intra-district variation is often higher than interdistrict
variation because differences in family, community
and service provision characteristics exert the strongest
influence on child development at the level of the
neighbourhood. Averages across large geographic areas
risk blending together substantial differences between
neighbourhoods so that opposite extremes within school
districts are summarized as the mid-point between the
extremes. Consistent with this pattern, the range in
neighbourhood variation in vulnerability within Burnaby is
double what we observe for the entire province when average
vulnerability trends in school districts are the unit of analysis.
Table 4.3.4: Social Competence and SES in Burnaby
Neighbourhood
Government Street
Burnaby Heights
Cariboo / Armstrong
Stoney Creek
Douglas
Metrotown
Second Street
Middlegate
Capitol Hill
Edmonds
Suncrest
Deer Lake
Brentwood
Twelfth Avenue
Cascade Heights
Buckingham / Lakeview
Willingdon Heights
Sperling / Westridge
Burnaby South
Burnaby Mountain
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
34
51
61
102
50
134
61
100
41
81
72
69
86
93
117
46
58
97
82
53
EDI (2003)
Percent
vulnerable
0
3.92
6.56
7.84
8.00
8.21
8.33
9.00
9.76
9.88
11.11
11.59
11.76
11.83
12.93
13.04
13.79
14.43
14.63
30.19
Average
score
8.92
8.49
8.50
8.20
8.11
8.27
7.93
7.87
8.32
8.08
8.12
8.05
7.92
7.91
7.76
8.04
7.99
7.66
7.94
7.38
Socioeconomic data 2
% Loneparent
Families
11.8
16.6
17.1
16.5
14.7
16.1
18.9
16.7
16.6
19.8
12.7
15.4
15.1
20.2
18.0
12.3
16.4
12.7
14.0
19.8
Median
Family
Income
72,702
59,679
55,923
52,817
68,973
34,652
54,952
40,835
62,291
49,411
60,806
53,345
51,082
37,894
50,857
70,375
53,268
53,136
57,309
56,639
% Males,
Driving
90.4
82.9
85.5
79.7
79.6
61.2
74.5
71.9
83.1
68.8
82.5
77.4
83.4
79.1
74.0
82.9
83.1
84.9
74.2
80.3
British Columbia 10.00 8.19 15.5 54,840 78.7
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.3.4: Social Vulnerability in Burnaby
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
7.21 %
19.88 %
Actual rate below prediction
Actual rate above prediction
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Government Street
Burnaby Mountain
0
30.19
7.21
10.31
7.21
19.88
92
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.3.4: Social Competence and Socioeconomic Status in Burnaby
Social Competence
Burnaby
Percent Vulnerable
14.16 % and above
9.76 - 14.15 %
6.98 - 9.75 %
4.26 - 6.97 %
4.25 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Loneparent
Families
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Median
Family Income
% Males,
Driving
Most Challenged
i.e. Higher percentage of lone-parent families, lower
incomes. Lower proportion of males who drive to work.
Most Advantaged
i.e. Lower percentage of lone-parent families, higher
incomes. Higher proportion of males who drive to work.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Below Predictions
District
#
57
79
61
28
70
36
61
22
36
22
61
36
83
61
61
68
73
91
22
44
28
70
62
20
41
1,000
500
250
Neighbourhood Name
Ospika South
Duncan - West
Victoria - Downtown
Quesnel North
Ucluelet
Whalley East
Mayfair
Vernon - North
Strawberry Hill South
Vernon - Southwest
Hillside
Newton
Armstrong/Spallumcheen
Mount Tolmie
Fairfield
Gabriola
Kamloops - Downtown
Fraser Lake
Vernon - Okanagan Lake
Grand Blvd
Nazko / Blackwater
Central Port
Millstream
Robson / Thrums
Government Street
Actual
Rate
0.00
1.96
4.17
0.00
1.75
1.82
2.13
2.67
2.27
2.94
5.15
3.61
0.00
2.27
1.43
3.45
2.63
0.00
2.33
1.69
0.00
6.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
Predicted
Rate
13.25
13.75
15.68
10.51
12.01
11.65
11.84
12.31
11.64
12.17
14.35
12.78
8.93
11.15
10.12
11.79
10.83
8.17
10.27
9.58
7.83
14.23
7.75
7.68
7.21
Burnaby
Heights
Willingdon
Heights
Canada Way
Boundary Rd
Cascade
Heights
Rumble St
Suncrest
F r a s e r
Difference
-13.25
-11.79
-11.51
-10.51
-10.26
-9.83
-9.71
-9.64
-9.37
-9.23
-9.20
-9.17
-8.93
-8.88
-8.69
-8.34
-8.20
-8.17
-7.94
-7.89
-7.83
-7.80
-7.75
-7.68
-7.21
Hastings St
Parker St
Willingdon Ave
Douglas
Deer Lake
Metrotown
R i
Brentwood
v e r
Royal Oak Ave
Kingsway
Burnaby South
Above Predictions
District
#
Capitol Hill
33
61
23
41
71
63
40
39
67
23
85
23
63
44
57
75
38
71
54
36
69
75
46
47
73
Burrard
Inlet
Deer
Lake
Sperling/
Westridge
Sperling Ave
7
1
B u
Buckingham
/Lakeview
Middlegate
Marine Way
Burnaby Mountain Parkway
r n
Edmonds
Government
Street
Twelfth
Avenue
Table 4.3.5: Social Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
Boundary Rd
Willingdon Ave
Trans
Lougheed
Neighbourhood Name
Chilliwack - South
Esquimalt
Black Mountain
Burnaby Mountain
Glacierview / Vanier
Sidney
Downtown - Stewardson
Mount Pleasant
Beach - Naramata
South Rutland
Port Hardy
Chief Tomat
Central South
Upper Lonsdale
South Fort George
Mission - Northeast
East Richmond
South Courtenay
Smithers - Telkwa
Newton North
Errington / Nanoose
Mission - North
Pender Harbour
Westview Centre
North Thompson
a
b y
- Canada
Canada Way
Highway
L
a
k e
Highway
Barnet
Cariboo/
Armstrong
Second
Street
Actual
Rate
37.50
34.72
26.00
30.19
31.03
26.47
25.42
30.23
20.99
22.81
23.40
22.03
20.83
18.75
27.50
18.33
17.95
23.73
17.24
21.52
17.78
19.23
16.67
17.78
17.81
Highway
Burnaby
Mountain
Stoney
Creek
Gagliardi Way
F r
Predicted
Rate
11.23
13.68
5.04
10.31
11.36
9.94
10.46
16.08
7.82
9.82
10.58
9.24
8.30
7.06
16.02
8.32
8.20
14.11
7.70
12.03
8.45
9.94
7.55
8.70
8.95
(20 Neighbourhoods)
7
1
r
a s e r R i v e
Difference
+26.27
+21.04
+20.96
+19.88
+19.67
+16.53
+14.96
+14.15
+13.17
+12.99
+12.82
+12.79
+12.53
+11.69
+11.48
+10.01
+9.75
+9.62
+9.54
+9.49
+9.33
+9.29
+9.12
+9.08
+8.86
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
93

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Social Development Among Aboriginal
Children in BC
W
hen we employ the neighbourhood-as-culture
approach to analyzing the population of Aboriginal
children in and across school districts, the range of social
vulnerability starts at 2.2% and rises to a high of 30.8%.
Across all BC neighbourhoods, the range for the entire
population reaches from 0% to 37.5% (see Table 4.3.7).
Once again, the range for Aboriginal children is substantial.
In this case, however, it fits precisely within the range for
the whole population, whereas the physical health and wellbeing
scale for Aboriginal neighbourhoods leaned more
toward the vulnerable direction (compare Table 4.3.7 with
Table 4.2.9).
Island North, Vancouver, North Vancouver, Stikine and
Chilliwack report some of the highest levels of social
vulnerability among Aboriginal children in the province
(Map 4.3.6). Among this group, North Vancouver is notable
since it is the only one of these four districts that enjoys low
challenge EDI results when the entire child population is
the unit of analysis (Table 4.3.6). This otherwise positive
school district generalization thus clearly does not capture
the challenges faced by young Aboriginal children who live
in North Vancouver. The discrepancy raises important
questions about the level of social distance between ethnic
groups that exists in the community.
Rocky Mountain, Fort Nelson, Nicola-Similkameen and
Okanagan-Similkameen stand out for their low rates of
vulnerability on this scale among Aboriginal children (Map
4.3.6). Aboriginal vulnerability rates are lower in these
districts than are rates for the broader population (see Table
4.3.6).
Table 4.3.7: Neighbourhood Range in Social Vulnerability:
Aboriginal Children and All Children
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Total Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
2.2 %
30.8 %
0 %
37.5 %
Table 4.3.6: Social Competence and Aboriginal Children
SD# District name
6 Rocky Mountain
81 Fort Nelson
58 Nicola - Similkameen
53 Okanagan - Similkameen
8 Kootenay Lake
22 Vernon
37 Delta
43 Coquitlam
28 Quesnel
35 Langley
92 Nisga'a
36 Surrey
70 Alberni
74 Gold Trail
72 Campbell River
73 Kamloops - Thompson
59 Peace River South
61 Greater Victoria
47 Powell River
67 Okanagan - Skaha
41 Burnaby
60 Peace River North
27 Cariboo - Chilcotin
34 Abbotsford
62 Sooke
52 Prince Rupert
68 Nanaimo
23 Central Okanagan
82 Coast Mountains
46 Sunshine Coast
75 Mission
54 Bulkley Valley
57 Prince George
91 Nechako Lakes
78 Fraser - Cascade
40 New Westminster
50 Haida Gwaii
5 Southeast Kootenay
42 Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
48 Howe Sound 1
79 Cowichan Valley
71 Comox Valley
33 Chilliwack
87 Stikine
44 North Vancouver
39 Vancouver 1
85 Island North
10 Arrow Lakes
19 Revelstoke
20 Kootenay - Columbia
38 Richmond
45 West Vancouver
49 Central Coast
51 Boundary
63 Saanich
64 Gulf Islands
69 Qualicum
83 North Okanagan - Shuswap
84 Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
2.17
5.00
5.77
6.45
7.14
7.69
8.70
8.82
8.89
9.30
10.71
11.30
11.30
11.32
12.87
13.38
13.41
14.08
14.29
14.89
15.91
15.91
16.05
16.22
16.67
17.09
17.17
18.42
18.59
19.05
19.23
20.00
20.11
20.34
21.21
21.74
21.88
21.92
22.22
22.22
24.44
26.19
27.12
29.27
30.00
30.77
33.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
2.17
5.00
5.77
6.45
7.14
7.69
8.70
8.82
8.89
9.30
10.71
11.30
11.30
11.32
12.87
13.38
13.41
14.08
14.29
14.89
15.91
15.91
16.05
16.22
16.67
17.09
17.17
18.42
18.59
19.05
19.23
20.00
20.11
20.34
21.21
21.74
21.88
21.92
22.22
22.22
24.44
26.19
27.12
29.27
30.00
30.77
33.33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial
Percent
Vulnerable
5.03
8.22
7.50
8.23
6.39
4.52
6.69
6.85
5.09
7.57
-
7.96
6.56
12.61
5.73
9.04
11.01
8.24
11.67
11.37
11.01
6.88
7.26
10.07
7.66
15.63
11.56
9.03
12.25
9.96
12.18
13.41
8.88
8.08
12.26
12.90
14.75
9.03
11.15
10.33
7.86
10.45
10.23
21.05
8.00
13.32
15.19
17.50
4.49
6.50
11.45
5.04
-
7.78
12.86
11.62
8.24
6.72
-
British Columbia 16.26 16.26 10.00
94
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.3.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Social Competence Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Social Competence
Percent Vulnerable
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
above 21.92 %
18.60 - 21.92 %
14.90 - 18.59 %
9.31 - 14.89 %
below 9.31 %
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
(10 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.3.7: Social Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children
Map 4.3.8: Social Vulnerability: All Children
Social Competence
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 12.26 %
10.46 - 12.26 %
8.11 - 10.45 %
6.81 - 8.10 %
below 6.81 %
95

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.4 Socioeconomic Status and Emotional Maturity
Socioeconomic Status and Emotional Maturity
T
able 4.4.1 lists the four neighbourhood SES
characteristics that predict emotional development
in BC communities and, together, account for 23% of the
variation in emotional vulnerability across the province
(Figure 4.4.1). Thus, nearly a quarter of the difference we
see in neighbourhood emotional vulnerability rates can be
explained by the different social and economic circumstances
that residents encounter in their respective neighbourhoods.
Table 4.4.1: Significant SES Predictors of Emotional
Vulnerability
Variable
(r 2 = 0.234)
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
Employment Rate, Males w/Children
30.0
Male employment rate in families
with children under six
% Lone-parent Families
27.3
Percentage of families headed by
a single parent
% Males, Management
25.3
Percentage of males employed in
management positions
% Males, No Unpaid Child Care 17.5
Percentage of males performing
no unpaid child care
Figure 4.4.1: Relationship Between Emotional
Vulnerability and SES
unexplained
variation
23.4 % of the variation in emotional
vulnerability across neighbourhoods
correlates with neighbourhood SES.
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Emotional
Development
L
Importance
Score
ike social vulnerability, the rate of emotional
immaturity does not appear to follow poverty rates;
instead, it is more sensitive to socioeconomic dynamics that
unfold across a broader spectrum of local residents. In
particular, neighbourhood employment rates among
households with young children, especially in occupations
that enjoy high status, predict emotional maturity. The level
of employment among men with children under age six in
the neighbourhood is the most important predictor of
Table 4.4.2: Emotional Maturity and SES in BC
SD#
28
20
37
63
19
46
6
72
60
22
44
35
36
43
64
8
51
42
41
73
74
57
27
82
70
45
62
79
38
34
53
91
5
48
10
61
83
69
71
23
33
47
40
78
75
54
67
58
52
59
39
68
81
50
87
85
49
84
92
District
Quesnel
Kootenay - Columbia
Delta
Saanich
Revelstoke
Sunshine Coast
Rocky Mountain
Campbell River
Peace River North
Vernon
North Vancouver
Langley
Surrey
Coquitlam
Gulf Islands
Kootenay Lake
Boundary
Maple Ridge - Pitt Mdws.
Burnaby
Kamloops - Thompson
Gold Trail
Prince George
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Coast Mountains
Alberni
West Vancouver
Sooke
Cowichan Valley
Richmond
Abbotsford
Okanagan - Similkameen
Nechako Lakes
Southeast Kootenay
Howe Sound
Arrow Lakes
Greater Victoria
N. Okanagan - Shuswap
Qualicum
Comox Valley
Central Okanagan
Chilliwack
Powell River
New Westminster
Fraser - Cascade
Mission
Okanagan - Skaha
Bulkley Valley
Nicola - Similkameen
Prince Rupert
Peace River South
Vancouver
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Fort Nelson
Haida Gwaii
Stikine
Island North
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI
Percent
Vulnerable
4.17
5.51
5.57
5.60
5.62
6.11
6.13
6.30
6.65
6.70
7.24
7.26
7.40
7.53
7.65
7.72
7.78
8.13
8.21
8.48
8.55
8.66
8.77
8.84
8.86
8.99
9.11
9.26
9.34
9.46
9.51
9.52
9.69
9.78
10.00
10.08
10.20
10.78
10.92
10.96
11.07
11.36
11.41
11.43
11.45
11.80
11.80
12.58
13.39
13.48
14.18
15.01
15.07
15.52
15.79
16.60
-
-
-
Average
Score
8.25
8.63
8.26
8.17
8.71
8.23
7.85
8.34
8.21
8.23
8.11
8.23
8.20
8.18
7.97
7.99
8.49
8.04
8.04
8.04
7.76
8.11
7.77
8.12
8.15
7.99
8.00
8.35
8.01
8.07
7.84
8.46
8.01
8.11
8.03
8.01
8.09
7.95
7.93
7.96
7.91
7.93
7.86
8.21
7.80
7.70
7.92
7.69
7.56
7.99
7.64
7.71
7.45
7.35
7.53
7.71
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
Empl. Rate,
Males with
Children
75.0
82.5
93.4
88.6
79.5
94.4
86.9
82.9
85.9
78.2
91.1
92.0
89.7
89.7
96.2
75.7
83.3
92.2
85.5
85.0
83.7
83.5
77.5
78.6
71.7
92.8
92.9
85.8
86.1
88.9
80.8
75.6
81.8
89.4
71.4
86.8
86.9
79.7
82.3
88.1
86.4
87.3
85.2
80.4
87.1
88.2
95.0
76.9
71.8
75.7
83.6
83.2
88.9
82.1
80.0
86.1
-
-
-
% Loneparent
Families
17.3
14.3
12.3
10.1
15.0
14.1
13.2
17.0
13.1
17.1
14.7
14.2
15.4
14.7
13.0
15.9
14.5
15.5
15.9
16.6
17.6
18.1
15.5
17.1
17.5
10.7
15.6
15.8
13.9
14.0
11.6
15.0
13.8
13.7
16.2
18.1
13.5
10.9
15.8
14.2
16.8
15.3
16.9
18.0
18.1
15.4
13.6
16.7
21.9
15.9
17.0
17.8
17.4
22.1
26.4
17.6
-
-
-
% Males,
Management
7.9
8.6
15.7
16.9
11.1
12.0
10.9
9.2
10.1
10.8
18.6
15.3
12.9
15.8
16.0
11.3
9.4
12.8
13.5
10.6
7.1
9.4
8.7
8.7
8.5
27.6
11.5
11.0
16.5
10.3
8.3
6.7
11.3
13.6
8.9
12.6
10.9
14.3
9.8
13.9
10.0
8.3
10.8
12.4
9.6
12.8
10.4
7.9
9.4
8.9
13.6
11.0
10.1
9.9
11.9
9.3
-
-
-
British Columbia 10.00 8.02 86.4 15.5 12.9
96
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.4.2: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in BC
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a children
under 5 population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Emotional Maturity
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
above 11.45 %
9.79 - 11.45 %
8.49 - 9.78 %
6.81 - 8.48 %
below 6.80 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(14 districts)
(10 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Vernon
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Employment
Rate, Males
with children
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
% Lone-parent
Families
% Males,
Management
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information
on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from
Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and
its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Most Challenged
Lower male employment rate in households with
children. Higher percentage of lone-parent families.
Lower percentage of males in management.
Most Advantaged
Higher male employment rate in households with
children. Lower percentage of lone-parent families.
Higher percentage of males in management.
97

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
emotional development. It accounts for 30% of the variation
in vulnerability rates across neighbourhoods that can be
explained by SES. This finding supports previous research
by Kohen et al. (2002, 1855).
The share of men who work for pay in management positions
in the community is almost equally significant — yielding
one-quarter of the power that SES can offer to explain
emotional vulnerability patterns. This finding is also
consistent with recent work by Curtis et al. (2004, 1918).
These districts confront social and economic characteristics
that adversely influence emotional health, and thus contribute
to higher rates of emotional vulnerability.
Cowichan Valley resembles a yellow average chameleon
community. This district falls in the middle of the provincial
range on the three most important socioeconomic predictors
of emotional immaturity and it also reports average levels
of vulnerability on this EDI scale.
As with social development, family structure is a significant
predictor of emotional development in BC. The share of
lone-parent families in the neighbourhood correlates with
higher rates of emotional immaturity at kindergarten age.
See Boyle and Lipman (2002) for further discussion of this
theme.
The proportion of men who perform no child care is also a
factor in emotional development, although it is less important
than the other three predictors. As the share of men who
perform no hours of unpaid child care increases in
neighbourhoods, so do emotional vulnerability rates. The
intersection of the lone-parent and male-caregiving variables
suggest that the gender division of care is implicated in
emotional vulnerability for young kids, particularly when
the parents of a child do not live together.
The pie charts on Map 4.4.2 and the accompanying table
highlight the first three SES predictors of emotional
immaturity. Recall that in respect of each variable, green
slices indicate relative advantage; yellow, mid-range; and
red, disadvantage.
Chameleon Communities
G
reen, low challenge chameleon communities include
Delta, Saanich, Sunshine Coast, North Vancouver,
Langley and Coquitlam. All enjoy socioeconomic conditions
that are advantaged relative to the rest of the province, and
all report low emotional vulnerability rates that are matched
by high average district scores.
Red, high challenge chameleon communities are evident in
the Nicola-Similkameen, Prince Rupert and Haida Gwaii.
Janus Communities
O
ne of the best examples of a good news Janus
community on the emotional maturity map is Quesnel.
The district has low vulnerability rates despite relatively
challenging socioeconomic conditions. Kootenay-Columbia
also approximates this pattern.
Central Okanagan, however, shows the opposite pattern.
Despite its relatively favourable SES, it reports high
vulnerability rates and low average scores on the emotional
scale.
SES in Buffered and Wide Range Community Types
T
he Rocky Mountain and Gulf Islands districts both
buffer low average scores on the emotional scale from
resulting in high levels of vulnerability in their districts.
Both enjoy relatively favourable SES, which may explain
low rates of risk, but raise questions about the districts’ poor
showing in terms of their average scores.
Fraser-Cascade is a wide ranging district with high
vulnerability rates occurring along side high average scores.
High (red) rates of lone-parent families and relatively low
(red) rates of employment among men with young kids
likely contribute to the district’s above-average vulnerability
level. By contrast, the district’s high (green) proportion of
men in management positions is typically expected to
associate with favourable behavioural outcomes and, thus,
may account in part for the district’s high average scores.
98
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

99
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Emotional Vulnerability
Table 4.4.3: Emotional Maturity and SES in Vernon
A
s a district, Vernon enjoys low challenge EDI results
on the emotional scale. It appears to be achieving
these results by overcoming significant SES barriers that
otherwise associate with greater levels of vulnerability (see
Map 4.4.3). The Southwest, West and Central parts of the
city stand out provincially as Janus neighbourhoods for
having vulnerability levels well below what would be
expected based on their SES (Table 4.4.5). Reported
vulnerability rates are between 11 and 16 percentage points
lower than predicted in these areas (Figure 4.4.3). These
neighbourhoods are joined by Vernon Southeast and
Coldstream, which exemplify the low challenge chameleon
pattern of completely green SES pies that accompany low
vulnerability rates and high neighbourhood average scores
(Table 4.4.3).
Vernon may be especially interesting since its neighbour to
the South, the Central Okanagan (District 23), is home to
three neighbourhoods that have vulnerability levels that are
considerably higher than would be expected based solely
on local SES (Table 4.4.5). The two districts therefore make
an interesting case study for those who are interested in the
characteristics of communities that contribute to positive
and negative child development trends.
Neighbourhood
Vernon - West
Vernon - Southwest
Coldstream
Vernon - Central
Vernon - Southeast
Vernon - North
Vernon - Okanagan Lake
Kalamalka Lake
Vernon - East
Lumby - Cherryville
Vernon - BX
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
EDI (2003)
35
34
54
34
47
75
44
41
38
82
44
Percent
vulnerable
0.00
0.00
1.89
3.03
6.52
6.76
7.14
7.32
7.89
12.20
13.16
Average
score
8.19
8.27
8.50
8.47
8.16
8.00
8.01
8.63
8.21
7.86
8.19
Socioeconomic data 2
Empl. Rate, % Loneparent
Males with
children Families
90.9
54.2
100.0
73.7
93.3
85.7
66.7
75.0
100.0
76.0
88.9
26.3
23.7
10.5
22.8
12.8
23.5
17.6
10.3
15.5
12.8
11.2
% Males,
Management
9.3
6.7
19.5
6.9
13.2
7.5
11.6
13.6
15.3
6.8
13.4
British Columbia 10.00 8.02 86.4 15.5 12.9
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.4.3: Emotional Vulnerability in Vernon
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
While the Vernon district is a good news story in the province,
the district map shows that the community should not be
content to rest on its laurels. The range of vulnerability
within Vernon is greater than the range across provincial
school districts. This observation reveals that large
neighbourhood variations are not only seen in school districts
that are moderate or high vulnerability overall; they are also
seen in low vulnerability communities.
11.05 %
11.97 %
Actual rate below prediction
Actual rate above prediction
Within Vernon, relatively high rates of vulnerability are
evident in the eastern communities of BX and Lumby-
Cherryville. BX stands out because of its relatively
advantaged social and economic characteristics. Vernon
residents have reason to question why positive SES conditions
in this neighbourhood are not translating into low vulnerability
rates when their community generally is able to reduce the
negative influence of more difficult SES indicators.
Neighbourhood
Vernon - Central
Vernon - West
Vernon - Southwest
15.69 %
Actual
Rate
3.03
0
0
Predicted
Rate
14.08
11.97
15.69
Difference
11.05
11.97
15.69
100
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.4.3: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in Vernon
Emotional Maturity
Vernon
Percent Vulnerable
14.00 % and above
9.52 - 13.99 %
7.19 - 9.51 %
4.88 - 7.18 %
4.87 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Employment
Rate, Males
with children
1,000
% Lone-parent
Families
% Males,
Circles sized according Management
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Most Challenged
Lower male employment rate in households with
children. Higher percentage of lone-parent families.
Lower percentage of males in management.
Most Advantaged
Higher male employment rate in households with
children. Lower percentage of lone-parent families.
Higher percentage of males in management.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
500
250
97
Vernon-
West
Vernon-
Central
Okanagan Landing Rd
Vernon-
Southeast
Old
KamloopsRd
32 St
97
97
97
27 St
30 Ave
32 St
6
Pleasant Valley Rd
Kalamalka
Lake
Silver Star
Rd
Vernon- BX
Vernon-
Okanagan Lake
Vernon-
Southwest
Vernon-
North
Vernon-
East
Coldstream
(11 Neighbourhoods)
6
Lumby -
Cherryville
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
101

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Although Chilliwack is relatively weak in terms of emotional
development when district averages are considered, pockets
of limited vulnerability are evident in Yarrow/Cultus Lake,
Sardis/Vedder and Fairfield (see Map 4.4.4). Concentration
of vulnerability occurs in the city core. The Downtown,
Chilliwack West and Chilliwack South neighbourhoods are
all red chameleons as they encounter difficult socioeconomic
conditions. Particularly worrisome, however, is the fact that
the West and South neighbourhoods do significantly worse
than researchers would expect based on their SES alone
(Table 4.4.5). The gap between reported and predicted
vulnerability rates for both neighbourhoods is about 14
percentage points (Figure 4.4.4). Thus, like some
neighbourhoods in Vancouver, there is reason to worry that
a combination of negative social and economic conditions
are exacerbating one another in the centre of Chilliwack to
multiply their negative influence on children’s emotional
development.
Table 4.4.4: Emotional Maturity and SES in Chilliwack
Neighbourhood
Sardis / Vedder
Yarrow / Cultus Lake
Chilliwack - Fairfield
Promontory / Valley
Chilliwack - East
Rosedale
Chilliwack - Downtown
Chilliwack - West
Chilliwack - South
EDI (2002)
EDI children Percent
surveyed (n) 1 Vulnerable
246
93
52
76
63
61
72
76
64
4.56
5.38
5.77
8.33
9.52
13.33
16.67
26.32
26.56
Average
Score
8.17
8.67
8.33
8.43
8.51
7.76
7.39
6.89
6.61
Socioeconomic data 2
Empl. Rate, % Loneparent
Males with
children Families
89.7
82.9
94.7
96.7
85.2
95.0
75.6
72.7
69.6
16.3
12.7
9.6
8.7
26.1
8.9
27.6
20.6
20.8
% Males,
Management
11.4
10.4
10.3
13.5
8.9
8.9
7.6
11.8
6.7
British Columbia 10.00 8.02 86.4 15.5 12.9
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2002, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.4.4: Emotional Vulnerability in Chilliwack
Neighbourhoods Below/Above Predictions
Actual rate below predictions
Actual rate above prediction
13.80 %
13.55 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Chilliwack - West
Chilliwack - South
26.32
26.56
12.52
13.01
13.80
13.55
102
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.4.4: Emotional Maturity and Socioeconomic Status in Chilliwack
Emotional Maturity
Percent Vulnerable
Socioeconomic Status
Below Predictions
District
#
22
61
22
22
61
36
41
28
57
57
79
36
73
57
73
46
64
20
70
72
27
27
70
36
28
Chilliwack
14.00 % and above
9.52 - 13.99 %
7.19 - 9.51 %
4.88 - 7.18 %
4.87 % and below
Socioeconomic Variables
Employment
Rate, Males
with children
1,000
% Males,
Circles sized according Management
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Most Challenged
Lower male employment rate in households with
children. Higher percentage of lone-parent families.
Lower percentage of males in management.
Most Advantaged
Higher male employment rate in households with
children. Lower percentage of lone-parent families.
Higher percentage of males in management.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
500
250
Neighbourhood Name
Vernon - Southwest
Victoria - Downtown
Vernon - West
Vernon - Central
Mayfair
Guildford West
Willingdon Heights
Quesnel West
Ospika South
Mackenzie
Duncan - West
Whalley East
Logan Lake / Savona
Upper Fraser
Brocklehurst
Gibsons / Langdale
Outer Gulf Islands
Castlegar
Ucluelet
Quinsam
100 Mile House
108 Mile House
Tofino - Ahousat
Guildford
Quesnel South
% Lone-parent
Families
Actual
Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
2.13
3.28
1.72
6.45
4.88
0.00
5.88
4.08
0.00
2.70
2.33
1.15
0.00
1.23
1.75
7.55
6.45
3.28
2.56
3.33
1.68
Mission
SD 75
Predicted
Rate
15.69
13.22
11.97
14.08
12.05
13.15
11.12
15.76
14.10
8.82
14.59
12.79
8.53
10.82
10.35
9.09
7.84
8.92
9.18
14.89
13.65
10.36
9.63
10.28
8.52
Yarrow/
Cultus Lake
Difference
-15.69
-13.22
-11.97
-11.05
-9.92
-9.87
-9.40
-9.31
-9.22
-8.82
-8.71
-8.71
-8.53
-8.12
-8.02
-7.94
-7.84
-7.69
-7.43
-7.34
-7.20
-7.08
-7.07
-6.95
-6.84
Above Predictions
District
#
Chilliwack
Downtown
Chilliwack
West
61
69
23
23
85
33
33
83
23
68
39
47
67
68
23
43
58
75
62
70
68
39
68
38
68
Chilliwack
Fairfield
Chilliwack
South
Sardis/
Vedder
Chilliwack
East
Table 4.4.5: Emotional Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
1
Watson Rd
Evans Rd
Tyson Rd
Spadina Ave
Yale Rd
Vedder Rd
1 Ave
Neighbourhood Name
Esquimalt
Errington / Nanoose
Matheson
Chief Tomat
Port Hardy
Chilliwack - West
Chilliwack - South
Enderby
Black Mountain
Cinnabar - Extension
Strathcona
Westview Centre
Downtown West
Cedar - Yellow Point
Pearson
Burquitlam
Princeton
Mission - West Heights
Langford
Bamfield - Alberni Canal
Newcastle - Townsite
South Cambie
Diver Lake
Hamilton
Lantzville - Dover
Hazel
Broadway
Bell Rd
Yale Rd
Prest Rd
Bailey Rd
Prest Rd
1 A Rosedale
1
Actual
Rate
34.72
30.23
32.20
23.21
24.29
26.32
26.56
22.45
18.37
20.41
26.58
20.00
22.35
21.74
22.47
19.31
17.95
19.05
18.18
20.00
21.54
18.18
16.67
13.46
15.19
McGuire Rd
Trans - Canada Highway
Promontory/
Chilliwack Valley
Predicted
Rate
12.98
11.51
13.73
8.31
9.94
12.52
13.01
9.28
6.93
9.19
15.48
9.26
11.84
11.43
12.95
10.14
9.21
10.43
9.63
11.53
13.09
9.81
8.36
5.17
6.94
(9 Neighbourhoods)
Difference
+21.74
+18.72
+18.47
+14.90
+14.35
+13.80
+13.55
+13.17
+11.44
+11.22
+11.10
+10.74
+10.51
+10.31
+9.52
+9.17
+8.74
+8.62
+8.55
+8.47
+8.45
+8.37
+8.31
+8.29
+8.25
Yale Rd
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
103

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Emotional Development Among Aboriginal
Children in BC
A
t the neighbourhood level, the range in emotional
vulnerability among all children spreads from 0%
to 34%. Among Aboriginal children in school district
neighbourhoods, the range is similar — it starts at 0% and
reaches a high of 31.9% (see Table 4.4.7).
Vancouver, Cowichan Valley, Southeast Kootenay, Island
North, Powell River and North Vancouver stand out as
regions with the highest levels of emotional vulnerability
among Aboriginal children (Map 4.4.6). Again, it is
interesting that North Vancouver emerges as a low challenge
district overall; but a high challenge district for Aboriginal
children (Table 4.4.6).
Quesnel excels in terms of fostering emotional maturity
among local Aboriginal children, as do communities in
Surrey, Langley, Alberni, Mission and Coquitlam (Map
4.4.6). All report vulnerability levels for Aboriginal children
that are equivalent to or below the vulnerability rates reported
for the entire population in the districts (Table 4.4.6).
Table 4.4.7: Neighbourhood Range in Emotional
Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children and
All Children
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Total Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
0 %
31.9 %
0 %
34.7 %
Table 4.4.6: Emotional Maturity and Aboriginal Children
SD#
28
36
35
70
75
43
37
74
61
6
22
42
57
72
58
53
82
67
52
73
8
48
92
81
27
60
34
59
41
78
23
62
54
68
46
71
40
87
91
33
50
44
47
85
5
79
39
10
19
20
38
45
49
51
63
64
69
83
84
District name
Quesnel
Surrey
Langley
Alberni
Mission
Coquitlam
Delta
Gold Trail
Greater Victoria
Rocky Mountain
Vernon
Maple Ridge -Pitt Meadows
Prince George
Campbell River
Nicola - Similkameen
Okanagan - Similkameen
Coast Mountains
Okanagan - Skaha
Prince Rupert
Kamloops - Thompson
Kootenay Lake
Howe Sound 1
Nisga'a
Fort Nelson
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Peace River North
Abbotsford
Peace River South
Burnaby
Fraser - Cascade
Central Okanagan
Sooke
Bulkley Valley
Nanaimo
Sunshine Coast
Comox Valley
New Westminster
Stikine
Nechako Lakes
Chilliwack
Haida Gwaii
North Vancouver
Powell River
Island North
Southeast Kootenay
Cowichan Valley
Vancouver 1
Arrow Lakes
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Richmond
West Vancouver
Central Coast
Boundary
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Qualicum
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
0.00
5.45
7.32
7.34
7.69
7.92
8.70
9.62
9.86
10.64
10.81
11.11
11.76
12.00
12.50
12.90
12.99
13.04
13.68
14.18
14.29
14.81
14.81
15.00
15.38
15.91
17.27
18.07
18.18
18.18
18.75
19.44
20.00
20.00
21.05
21.43
21.74
21.95
22.03
24.14
24.14
26.67
28.57
30.00
30.14
30.43
31.94
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
0.00
5.45
7.32
7.34
7.69
7.92
8.70
9.62
9.86
10.64
10.81
11.11
11.76
12.00
12.50
12.90
12.99
13.04
13.68
14.18
14.29
14.81
14.81
15.00
15.38
15.91
17.27
18.07
18.18
18.18
18.75
19.44
20.00
20.00
21.05
21.43
21.74
21.95
22.03
24.14
24.14
26.67
28.57
30.00
30.14
30.43
31.94
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial
Percent
Vulnerable
4.17
7.40
7.26
8.86
11.45
7.53
5.57
8.55
10.08
6.13
6.70
8.13
8.66
6.30
12.58
9.51
8.84
11.80
13.39
8.48
7.72
10.40
-
15.07
8.77
6.65
9.46
13.48
8.21
11.43
10.96
9.11
11.80
15.01
6.11
10.92
11.41
15.79
9.52
11.07
15.52
7.24
11.36
16.60
9.69
9.26
13.96
10.00
5.62
5.51
9.34
8.99
-
7.78
5.60
7.65
10.78
10.20
-
British Columbia 16.12 16.12 10.00
104
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.4.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Emotional Maturity Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Emotional Maturity
Percent Vulnerable,
Aboriginal Colour Codes
above 22.03 %
17.28 - 22.03 %
13.05 - 17.27 %
9.87 - 13.04 %
below 9.87 %
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(8 districts)
(12 districts)
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.4.7: Emotional Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children
Map 4.4.8: Emotional Vulnerability: All Children
Emotional Maturity
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 11.45 %
9.79 - 11.45 %
8.49 - 9.78 %
6.81 - 8.48 %
below 6.81 %
105

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.5 Socioeconomic Status, Language and Cognitive
Development
Socioeconomic Status and Language/Cognitive Development
N
eighbourhood rates of vulnerability on this EDI scale
correlate with five local SES characteristics (see
Table 4.5.1). Together, the five explain 27% of the variation
in levels of vulnerability across BC communities (Figure
4.5.1).
Table 4.5.1: Significant SES Predictors of Language and
Cognitive Vulnerability
Variable
(r 2 = 0.272)
Median Family Income
Median annual family income
% Lone-parent Families
Percentage of families headed by
a single parent
Unemployment Rate, with Children
Unemployment rate among families
with children under six
unexplained
variation
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
Importance
Score
33.5
24.0
17.8
Employment Rate, Males w/Children 17.4
Male employment rate among
families with children under six
% Non-Christian 7.3
Figure 4.5.1: Relationship Between Language and
Cognitive Vulnerability and SES
27.2 % of the variation in language
development vulnerability across
neighbourhoods correlates with
neighbourhood SES.
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Language and
Cognitive Development
L
anguage and cognitive vulnerability is not closely
associated with low income. As with emotional
development, economic trends that impact a broader segment
of the labour market appear more important in predicting
rates of language and cognitive delay. (Un)employment
patterns among households with kids, especially as they
impact median household income, account for nearly 70%
of the variation in vulnerability rates that can be explained
by SES. As Curtis et al. (2004, 1918) observe, this finding
is consistent with several other studies “which have found
that high-quality neighbourhood characteristics are related
to cognitive child adolescent outcomes but that low-quality
Table 4.5.2: Language, Cognitive Development and SES in BC
SD#
74
45
20
6
8
44
5
69
72
91
35
43
53
83
81
22
67
27
42
19
38
37
63
61
79
62
46
64
28
59
73
57
40
23
60
36
34
87
51
71
33
54
48
41
68
58
75
39
82
78
70
10
52
85
47
50
49
84
92
District
Gold Trail
West Vancouver
Kootenay - Columbia
Rocky Mountain
Kootenay Lake
North Vancouver
Southeast Kootenay
Qualicum
Campbell River
Nechako Lakes
Langley
Coquitlam
Okanagan - Similkameen
N. Okanagan - Shuswap
Fort Nelson
Vernon
Okanagan - Skaha
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Maple Ridge - Pitt Mdws.
Revelstoke
Richmond
Delta
Saanich
Greater Victoria
Cowichan Valley
Sooke
Sunshine Coast
Gulf Islands
Quesnel
Peace River South
Kamloops - Thompson
Prince George
New Westminster
Central Okanagan
Peace River North
Surrey
Abbotsford
Stikine
Boundary
Comox Valley
Chilliwack
Bulkley Valley
Howe Sound
Burnaby
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Nicola - Similkameen
Mission
Vancouver
Coast Mountains
Fraser - Cascade
Alberni
Arrow Lakes
Prince Rupert
Island North
Powell River
Haida Gwaii
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI
Percent
Vulnerable
2.50
3.26
3.30
3.95
4.09
4.83
5.65
5.73
5.80
5.86
6.11
6.25
6.43
6.47
6.85
7.36
7.50
7.71
7.86
7.87
7.90
7.92
8.03
8.25
8.38
8.56
9.05
9.09
9.09
9.18
9.35
9.48
9.50
9.99
10.10
10.26
10.34
10.53
10.56
11.02
11.35
11.59
11.98
12.59
13.46
13.75
13.89
13.89
13.97
14.08
14.78
15.00
15.11
15.68
16.40
24.59
-
-
-
Average
Score
8.12
9.02
8.93
8.46
8.54
8.44
8.42
8.32
8.33
8.42
8.45
8.48
8.26
8.31
8.60
8.18
8.33
8.28
8.49
8.81
8.41
8.12
8.09
8.30
8.27
8.22
8.42
8.03
7.78
8.40
8.12
8.26
8.05
8.01
7.94
8.16
8.13
7.44
8.38
7.91
8.20
7.80
7.81
7.89
7.84
8.18
7.64
7.70
8.03
7.79
7.62
8.62
7.73
7.67
7.64
7.69
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
Median
Family
Income
40,471
89,790
58,133
52,345
45,462
69,997
56,992
47,803
52,103
54,226
63,833
62,444
36,694
44,366
69,045
47,619
47,205
50,101
62,400
57,111
52,454
70,570
67,140
56,676
52,029
57,920
49,388
47,801
51,679
55,738
54,373
60,637
55,399
51,136
60,983
55,881
51,516
42,537
43,103
50,551
49,529
61,352
62,712
51,571
50,226
46,947
51,603
51,382
58,490
41,346
50,090
42,675
55,562
57,045
50,268
54,374
-
-
-
% Loneparent
Families
17.6
10.7
14.3
13.2
15.9
14.7
13.8
10.9
17.0
15.0
14.2
14.7
11.6
13.5
17.4
17.1
15.4
15.5
15.5
15.0
13.9
12.3
10.1
18.1
15.8
15.6
14.1
13.0
17.3
15.9
16.6
18.1
16.9
14.2
13.1
15.4
14.0
26.4
14.5
15.8
16.8
13.6
13.7
15.9
17.8
16.7
18.1
17.0
17.1
18.0
17.5
16.2
21.9
17.6
15.3
22.1
-
-
-
Unempl.
Rate with
Children
12.2
4.3
14.8
14.1
16.4
5.3
12.1
12.7
14.4
13.9
4.1
6.9
14.5
10.3
10.4
11.7
8.1
15.0
5.2
22.2
7.7
4.9
4.8
6.9
11.6
6.7
4.7
2.2
16.4
15.5
10.6
12.7
6.9
8.5
9.7
7.1
8.6
15.8
9.5
15.2
7.5
5.4
7.9
7.2
12.4
17.5
8.2
8.2
16.1
19.3
17.0
38.5
17.2
9.9
10.8
20.0
-
-
-
British Columbia 10.00 8.15 54,840 15.5 72.3
106
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.5.2: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in BC
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a children
under 5 population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Language and Cognitive Development
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
above 12.59 %
9.51 - 12.59 %
7.93 - 9.50 %
6.25 - 7.92 %
below 6.25 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(12 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Vernon
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Median
Family Income
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
% Lone-parent
Families
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
neighbourhood characteristics are not.” It is worth noting,
however, that the HELP data diverges from research by
Kohen et al. (2002, 1852), who did not find that
neighbourhood unemployment was associated with children’s
verbal ability scores in their study that draws on data from
the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.
Unemployment
Rate, Families
with Children
Most Challenged
Lower median family income. Higher percentage of
lone-parent families. Higher unemployment rate.
Most Advantaged
Higher family income. Lower percentage of loneparent
families. Lower unemployment rate.
Family structure explains most of the rest of the variation
in vulnerability attributable to SES that is not captured by
income or employment patterns. Vulnerability is more
common in neighbourhoods where a greater share of parents
shoulder responsibility for child rearing alone.
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information on the
availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada’s
Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-
263-1136.
107

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Religion is also a significant predictor of language and
cognitive vulnerability, but not as strong as the other four.
As the share of the neighbourhood population that adheres
to a non-Christian system of faith rises, so does vulnerability
on this EDI scale. One interpretation of this finding is that
the EDI tool may evaluate cognitive and language
development according to standards that are somewhat
Christian-centric. Alternatively, it may offer some evidence
that the level of diversity common in more urban areas poses
added challenges for residents when they strive to foster
environments that will allow children to thrive cognitively
and linguistically in English. Diversity may undermine trust
levels within neighbourhoods or subject members of non-
Christian faith groups to more frequent experiences of
prejudice. Ultimately, further research is necessary to unpack
the meaning of the percentage non-Christian variable as it
impacts language and cognitive development.
The pie charts on Map 4.5.2 highlight the three most important
SES predictors of emotional language and cognitive
vulnerability rates.
Chameleon Communities
W
est Vancouver, North Vancouver, Langley and
Coquitlam are all low challenge (green) chameleon
communities. Their low levels of vulnerability and high
average scores track favourable socioeconomic conditions.
Fraser-Cascade and Alberni school districts are high challenge
(red) chameleon communities. It is interesting that Alberni
assumes the colour of its red (disadvantaged) SES pie in
regards to this developmental scale when it partly succeeds
in overcoming SES challenges on every other scale.
of relatively weak socioeconomic characteristics. In contrast,
most of the other districts that enjoy low challenge EDI
results on this scale also enjoy relatively favourable SES.
The Bulkley Valley and Howe Sound display the more
worrisome trend in which favourable socioeconomic
circumstances do not result in low levels of vulnerability
and high average scores. This pattern is also mirrored
somewhat in Saanich.
SES in Buffered and Wide Range Community Types
G
old Trail is a buffered community. Its challenging
SES circumstances may explain the relatively low
average score children received on the language and cognitive
scale. Something in the community, however, is mitigating
this SES challenge so that it does not result in high rates of
reported vulnerability.
Delta is another buffered community. Its low average scores
are somewhat surprising, however, given the favourable
SES that the district enjoys.
Arrow Lakes and Boundary are wide ranging districts. The
former confronts relatively disadvantaged SES, which may
account for the district’s high rates of vulnerability, but not
the high average score. By contrast, Boundary is home to
a mixed SES pie that lends itself to competition and relative
deprivation interpretations of the influence of neighbourhood
over early development. Recall that these frameworks imply
that children from less privileged homes in a neighbourhood
may struggle to keep up with peers or suffer lower selfesteem
as a result of comparing themselves to more
advantaged residents.
Cowichan Valley’s mid-range EDI results keep pace with
mid-range socioeconomic conditions in the district to
exemplify the average chameleon pattern.
Janus Communities
K
ootenay Lake and Campbell River are examples of
good news colour-contrasting districts in regards to
the language and cognitive scale. They are noteworthy for
their ability to shield children from the negative influence
108
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

109
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Language and Cognitive
Development Vulnerability
T
he Kootenay-Columbia and Kootenay Lake school
districts are low challenge communities because
several neighbourhoods mitigate the potential impact of
weak local social and economic conditions (Map 4.5.3).
Kootenay Lake, Castlegar, Robson/Thrums, Beaver Valley,
Salmo and Nelson are particularly worth noting in this regard
since they are among the 25 in the province that record
vulnerability levels that are furthest below SES expectations
(see Table 4.5.5). Predicted rates of vulnerability are between
8 and 11 percentage points higher than actual rates (Figure
4.5.3). The ability these districts demonstrate to protect
young children from the relatively unfavourable SES that
characterizes many communities merits particular attention
when the neighbouring district to the north, Arrow Lakes,
does not have the same success. The three districts again
offer researchers and policy makers interesting natural
experiments to examine for insight about the role that socialcare
dynamics play in fostering child well-being.
Table 4.5.3: Language, Cognitive Development and SES in
the West Kootenays
Neighbouhood
Beaver Valley
Robson / Thrums
Castlegar
Kootenay Lake
Slocan Valley
Nelson
Creston
Salmo
Rossland / Warfield
Trail
Arrow Lakes
EDI (2002, 03, 04)
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
49
51
81
119
130
170
278
43
51
45
40
Percent
vulnerable
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.71
2.31
2.40
6.18
6.98
7.84
11.36
15.00
Average
score
9.00
9.26
9.35
8.76
8.45
8.58
8.45
8.49
7.95
8.20
8.27
Socioeconomic data 2
Median
Family
Income
60,250
55,614
56,292
43,551
47,991
53,307
41,932
44,093
63,333
54,320
41,149
% Loneparent
Families
12.5
16.1
13.6
13.3
15.6
22.4
13.3
13.9
12.7
17.4
15.6
Unempl.
Rate with
Children
22.2
0
14.3
25.5
10.6
9.1
16.7
46.7
14.3
15.6
38.5
British Columbia 10.00 8.15 54,840 15.5 72.3
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2002, 2003, 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
Socioeconomic data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom
Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.5.3: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability in West
Kootenay Neighbourhoods: Below/Above
Predictions
Actual rate below predictions
Actual rate above predictions
7.70 %
8.49 %
10.64 %
9.51 %
8.43 %
7.75 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Kootenay Lake
Castlegar
Robson/Thrums
Beaver Valley
Salmo
Nelson
1.71
0
0
0
6.98
2.40
12.35
9.51
8.49
8.43
14.73
10.10
-10.64
-9.51
-8.49
-8.43
-7.75
-7.70
110
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.5.3: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in the West Kootenays
West Kootenay
Language and Cognitive Development
Percent Vulnerable
13.65 % and above
9.95 - 13.64 %
7.15 - 9.94 %
4.47 - 7.14 %
4.46 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Median
Family
Income
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-5 in each neighbourhood
200
100
50
% Lone-parent
Families
Unemployment
Rate, with
children
Most Challenged
Lower median family income. Higher percentage of
lone-parent families. Higher unemployment rate.
Most Advantaged
Higher family income. Lower percentage of loneparent
families. Lower unemployment rate.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
6
Needles
Ferry
Blueberry-
Paulson
3
6
Nakusp
6
Arrow Lakes
Castlegar
Rossland
/Warfield
6
Slocan
Valley
6
3 A
3 A 3 A
6
Salmo
3
22
3
3 B
3 B Creston
Kootenay
21
Pass
Nancy
Greene
Robson/
Thrums
22
Trail
Slocan
New Denver
Silverton
Beaver
Valley
Nelson
31 A
3
31
Kaslo
Kootenay
Lake
Crawford
Bay
3 A
K o o t e
n a y
Salmo-Creston Hwy
L a k
(11 Neighbourhoods)
e
Nelson
Idaho
(U.S.A)
3
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
111

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The city of Terrace is located within the high challenge
Coast Mountain district. Three of the city’s four
neighbourhoods have less favourable social and economic
characteristics compared to the rest of the province (Map
4.5.4). The Horseshoe area is a good example of a red
chameleon neighbourhood with high challenge EDI results
and three disadvantaged SES pie slices. The neighbourhood
to the east, Thornhill, is also worrisome because it is near
the top of the list of neighbourhoods in the province with
language and cognitive vulnerability rates that are much
higher than predictions based solely on local SES (Table
4.5.5). The actual rate in Thornhill is 36%; the predicted
rate was just 10% (Figure 4.5.4).
Readers should also observe that the northernmost
neighbourhood in Terrace enjoys relatively privileged
socioeconomic conditions relative to the rest of the province.
Despite this, the neighbourhood’s language and cognitive
vulnerability rate is only in the middle of the provincial
pack. One wonders whether its EDI ranking in the province
is lower than its SES ranking due to the fact that the overall
socioeconomic character of the community is less advantaged.
Maggi et al. (2004) provide evidence to support this
interpretation. They question whether the learning
experiences of otherwise advantaged or highly competent
children are compromised by a less stimulating climate
created by a large proportion of children who struggle with
learning difficulties and, once in school, a lack of attention
from a teacher who must devote considerable time to children
who require additional support. Their research offers modest
support for this hypothesis at kindergarten age, and
significantly more evidence once children enter the formal
primary school system. This research gives reason for any
neighbourhood that is privileged in terms of SES relative
to the rest of its community to take interest in the social and
economic conditions of the entire town or city, as well as
the prevalence of learning difficulties among children who
attend child care and primary school settings together.
Table 4.5.4: Language, Cognitive Development and SES
in Terrace
Neighbourhood
Terrace - North
Terrace - Downtown
Terrace - Horseshoe
Terrace - Thornhill
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
54
50
40
64
EDI (2003)
Percent
vulnerable
7.41
10.00
15.00
35.94
Average
score
8.54
7.70
7.73
6.55
Socioeconomic data 2
Median
Family
Income
73,915
55,184
50,065
53,142
% Loneparent
Families
11.8
20.6
20.1
17.2
Unempl.
Rate with
Children
10.4
16.7
10.9
18.3
British Columbia 10.00 8.15 54,840 15.5 72.3
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.5.4: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability in
Terrace Neighbourhoods: Below/Above
Predictions
Actual rate below predictions
Actual rate above predictions
25.87 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Terrace - Thornhill 35.94 10.07 25.87
112
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.5.4: Language, Cognitive Development and Socioeconomic Status in Terrace
Below Predictions
District
#
79
71
74
8
91
71
71
20
59
5
23
61
27
72
44
20
74
20
39
83
69
8
8
83
33
Terrace
Language and Cognitive Development
Percent Vulnerable
13.65 % and above
9.95 - 13.64 %
7.15 - 9.94 %
4.47 - 7.14 %
4.46 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
Median
Family
Income
150
100
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-5 in each neighbourhood
50
Neighbourhood Name
% Lone-parent
Families
Employment
Rate with
Children
Most Challenged
Lower median family income. Higher percentage of
lone-parent families. Higher unemployment rate.
Most Advantaged
Higher family income. Lower percentage of loneparent
families. Lower unemployment rate.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Duncan - West
Comox West
Lillooet / Clinton
Kootenay Lake
Fraser Lake
Cumberland / Arden
Lazo
Castlegar
Dawson Creek South
Cranbrook - North
Shannon Lake
Victoria - Downtown
108 Mile House
Campbell River - Centre
Grand Blvd
Robson / Thrums
Thompson Canyon
Beaver Valley
University Lands
Sicamous
Parksville
Salmo
Nelson
Armstrong / Spallumcheen
Chilliwack - East
Actual
Rate
4.00
0.00
1.61
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.13
4.94
0.00
6.25
1.64
7.69
0.00
0.00
3.45
0.00
3.28
5.56
2.74
6.98
2.40
0.93
6.35
Kalum Lake Dr
Predicted
Rate
19.50
10.99
12.43
12.35
10.39
10.23
9.85
9.51
11.58
13.95
8.66
14.88
10.25
16.26
8.53
8.49
11.94
8.43
11.42
13.59
10.62
14.73
10.10
8.63
13.95
16
Difference
-15.50
-10.99
-10.82
-10.64
-10.39
-10.23
-9.85
-9.51
-9.45
-9.01
-8.66
-8.63
-8.61
-8.57
-8.53
-8.49
-8.49
-8.43
-8.14
-8.03
-7.88
-7.75
-7.70
-7.70
-7.60
Kenney
Kenney
Halliwell
Scott
Horseshoe
Above Predictions
District
#
70
82
23
71
61
68
35
58
23
41
71
92
23
50
85
33
68
33
84
33
23
34
39
41
Downtown
Table 4.5.5: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
North
Eby
Lakelse
Kalum
Neighbourhood Name
Bamfield - Alberni Canal
Terrace - Thornhill
Casorso
Glacierview / Vanier
Esquimalt
Cedar - Yellow Point
Rural South Langley
Princeton
Chief Tomat
Burnaby Mountain
South Courtenay
Nisga'a
Matheson
Haida Gwaii
Port Hardy
Chilliwack - Fairfield
South Nanaimo
Chilliwack - South
Island West
Chilliwack - West
Raymer
McMillan
Mount Pleasant
Twelfth Avenue
37
Actual
Rate
45.45
35.94
33.33
33.33
29.17
28.26
22.95
25.64
25.45
24.53
26.32
32.14
25.42
24.59
21.99
17.65
31.63
25.00
25.00
23.68
23.26
17.83
25.70
24.73
Thornhill
Predicted
Rate
17.96
10.07
10.92
12.40
11.39
10.92
5.83
8.78
9.43
10.08
12.33
18.54
12.04
11.37
9.58
5.42
19.59
12.98
13.30
12.11
11.86
6.57
14.86
14.61
(4 Neighbourhoods)
16
37
Difference
+27.49
+25.87
+22.41
+20.93
+17.78
+17.34
+17.12
+16.86
+16.02
+14.45
+13.99
+13.60
+13.38
+13.22
+12.41
+12.23
+12.04
+12.02
+11.70
+11.57
+11.40
+11.26
+10.84
+10.12
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
113

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Language and Cognitive Development Among
Aboriginal Children in BC
A
t the neighbourhood level, the range in vulnerability
on this EDI scale for the whole population is 0% to
35.9%. For Aboriginal school district neighbourhoods, the
range is 4.8% to 47.6% (Table 4.5.7). Thus, unlike the case
for social and emotional development, the range of cognitive
and language vulnerability among Aboriginal children is
wider and shifted towards higher vulnerability than compared
to the rest of the population.
Vulnerability on this scale is above 30% among Aboriginal
children in Powell River, Haida Gwaii, Fraser-Cascade,
Island North, Mission, Peace River North, Nisga’a, and
Alberni (Map 4.5.6). All of these districts report high
challenge results for the total population as well, although
the vulnerability rate drops by roughly half in these districts
when the overall population is the unit of analysis (Table
4.5.6).
Aboriginal vulnerability is lowest in the Sunshine Coast,
Gold Trail, Rocky Mountain and Okanagan-Similkameen
(Map 4.5.6). The Sunshine Coast and Okanagan-
Similkameen stand out for reporting vulnerability levels
among Aboriginal children that are equal to, or lower than,
the population as a whole (Table 4.5.6).
Table 4.5.7: Neighbourhood Range in Language and
Cognitive Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children
and All Children
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Total Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
4.8 %
47.6 %
0 %
35.9 %
Table 4.5.6: Language, Cognitive Development and
Aboriginal Children
SD#
46
74
6
53
8
81
73
87
40
28
5
36
67
54
39
43
72
34
35
59
62
71
27
61
91
58
42
82
23
57
48
41
22
44
52
37
79
68
33
70
92
60
75
85
78
50
47
10
19
20
38
45
49
51
63
64
69
83
84
District name
Sunshine Coast
Gold Trail
Rocky Mountain
Okanagan - Similkameen
Kootenay Lake
Fort Nelson
Kamloops - Thompson
Stikine
New Westminster
Quesnel
Southeast Kootenay
Surrey
Okanagan - Skaha
Bulkley Valley
Vancouver 1
Coquitlam
Campbell River
Abbotsford
Langley
Peace River South
Sooke
Comox Valley
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Greater Victoria
Nechako Lakes
Nicola - Similkameen
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Coast Mountains
Central Okanagan
Prince George
Howe Sound 1
Burnaby
Vernon
North Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Delta
Cowichan Valley
Nanaimo
Chilliwack
Alberni
Nisga'a
Peace River North
Mission
Island North
Fraser - Cascade
Haida Gwaii
Powell River
Arrow Lakes
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Richmond
West Vancouver
Central Coast
Boundary
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Qualicum
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
4.76
5.56
6.38
6.45
9.52
10.00
12.06
12.20
13.04
13.33
13.70
14.68
14.89
15.00
15.38
15.69
15.84
16.22
16.28
16.46
17.14
17.50
18.18
18.31
18.97
19.23
20.00
21.15
21.24
21.89
22.22
22.73
23.08
23.33
23.73
23.81
24.44
25.00
28.07
30.09
33.33
34.09
34.62
35.00
39.39
40.63
47.62
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal %
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
4.76
5.56
6.38
6.45
9.52
10.00
12.06
12.20
13.04
13.33
13.70
14.68
14.89
15.00
15.38
15.69
15.84
16.22
16.28
16.46
17.14
17.50
18.18
18.31
18.97
19.23
20.00
21.15
21.24
21.89
22.22
22.73
23.08
23.33
23.73
23.81
24.44
25.00
28.07
30.09
33.33
34.09
34.62
35.00
39.39
40.63
47.62
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial
Percent
Vulnerable
9.05
2.50
3.95
6.43
4.09
6.85
9.35
10.53
9.50
9.09
5.65
10.26
7.50
11.59
9.85
6.25
5.80
10.34
6.11
9.18
8.56
11.02
7.71
8.25
5.86
13.75
7.86
13.97
9.99
9.48
7.07
12.59
7.36
4.83
15.11
7.92
8.38
13.46
11.35
14.78
-
10.10
13.89
15.68
14.08
24.59
16.40
15.00
7.87
3.30
7.90
3.26
-
10.56
8.03
9.09
5.73
6.47
-
British Columbia 19.84 19.84 10.00
114
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.5.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Language and Cognitive Development Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Language and Cognitive Development
Percent Vulnerable,
Aboriginal Colour Codes
above 25.00 %
21.25 - 25.00 %
15.85 - 21.24 %
13.04 - 15.84 %
below 13.04 %
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(9 districts)
(9 districts)
(12 districts)
(9 districts)
(8 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.5.7: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability:
Aboriginal Children
Map 4.5.8: Language and Cognitive Vulnerability:
All Children
Language and Cognitive
Development
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 12.59 %
9.51 - 12.59 %
7.93 - 9.50 %
6.25 - 7.92 %
below 6.25 %
115

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.6 Socioeconomic Status, Communication Skills and
General Knowledge
Socioeconomic Status, Communication Skills and General
Knowledge
T
he relationship between neighbourhood SES and
vulnerability is stronger in respect of communication
skills and general knowledge than it is for any other EDI
scale. Five neighbourhood SES variables listed in Table
4.6.1 predict communication and knowledge vulnerability
levels. They collectively explain almost half of the variation
in developmental vulnerability witnessed across BC (Figure
4.6.1).
Table 4.6.1: Significant SES Predictors of Communication
and General Knowledge Vulnerability
Variable
(r 2 = 0.469)
% Foreign Home Language
Percentage using a language within the
home that is neither English nor French
Homeownership Rate
Percentage of occupied dwellings
that are owner-occupied
% Aboriginal
Percentage of population reporting
any Aboriginal status
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
Importance
Score
55.8
23.1
10.2
Gender Income Disparity 6.5
Ratio of average female income to
average male income
% Males, Management 4.5
Percentage of males employed in
management positions
Figure 4.6.1: Relationship Between Communication and
General Knowledge Vulnerability and SES
unexplained
variation
46.9 % of the variation in communication
and general knowledge vulnerability across
neighbourhoods correlates with
neighbourhood SES.
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Communication
Skills and General Knowledge
S
ocioeconomic characteristics indexed to minority
ethnocultural group membership are the most important
SES factors that predict developmental delays on the
communication and general knowledge scale. The share of
the neighbourhood population that speaks a language other
than English or French at home, and the share of the
Table 4.6.2: Communication, General Knowledge and SES in BC
SD#
46
81
51
69
22
6
20
72
5
70
8
35
62
44
91
28
73
71
45
83
33
42
60
82
19
43
67
23
79
63
64
57
61
53
54
68
37
58
87
59
85
74
75
27
47
48
36
78
34
38
50
41
40
10
39
52
84
92
49
District
Sunshine Coast
Fort Nelson
Boundary
Qualicum
Vernon
Rocky Mountain
Kootenay - Columbia
Campbell River
Southeast Kootenay
Alberni
Kootenay Lake
Langley
Sooke
North Vancouver
Nechako Lakes
Quesnel
Kamloops - Thompson
Comox Valley
West Vancouver
N. Okanagan - Shuswap
Chilliwack
Maple Ridge - Pitt Mdws.
Peace River North
Coast Mountains
Revelstoke
Coquitlam
Okanagan - Skaha
Central Okanagan
Cowichan Valley
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Prince George
Greater Victoria
Okanagan - Similkameen
Bulkley Valley
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
Delta
Nicola - Similkameen
Stikine
Peace River South
Island North
Gold Trail
Mission
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Powell River
Howe Sound
Surrey
Fraser - Cascade
Abbotsford
Richmond
Haida Gwaii
Burnaby
New Westminster
Arrow Lakes
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Island West
Nisga'a
Central Coast
EDI
Percent
Vulnerable
0.43
2.74
2.78
2.87
3.20
3.72
3.99
4.02
4.21
4.21
4.22
4.59
4.63
4.99
5.05
5.09
5.17
5.42
5.42
5.72
5.92
6.09
6.39
6.73
6.74
6.87
6.88
6.97
7.02
7.04
7.07
7.07
7.32
7.46
7.93
8.46
8.59
8.75
8.77
8.78
8.82
9.17
9.20
9.20
9.46
9.72
10.25
10.28
11.28
12.06
13.11
14.17
14.89
15.00
22.04
22.22
-
-
-
Average
Score
8.18
7.74
8.24
7.53
7.77
8.01
8.36
7.87
8.16
7.84
7.85
7.77
7.98
7.90
8.25
7.48
7.43
7.59
8.31
7.91
7.71
7.62
7.60
7.52
8.32
7.79
7.67
7.53
7.66
7.52
7.10
7.57
7.73
7.42
7.26
7.40
7.34
7.17
7.23
7.01
7.85
6.59
7.42
7.53
7.40
7.18
7.49
7.52
7.57
7.38
7.71
7.18
7.18
7.30
6.54
6.29
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
% Foreign
Home
Language
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.3
0.6
1.2
1.6
0.7
1.2
0.5
2.2
0.9
6.9
1.2
1.8
1.5
0.7
6.7
0.5
1.4
2.2
3.1
2.0
0.9
11.4
1.8
1.5
0.9
1.4
0.7
1.7
3.1
5.4
0.9
1.5
7.2
1.7
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.9
3.0
1.8
0.6
3.7
14.0
1.1
9.9
25.0
0.3
20.8
8.0
1.0
21.7
2.7
-
-
-
Homeownership
Rate
77.8
67.7
78.2
80.2
71.9
79.2
79.6
72.6
74.3
72.0
75.2
77.6
76.7
66.2
71.8
74.9
73.2
74.2
73.0
78.1
72.7
77.3
69.4
73.7
72.4
72.4
69.7
73.5
76.5
83.7
79.8
73.0
55.0
77.5
77.0
71.6
79.4
69.5
45.5
71.7
67.8
69.3
74.6
74.5
76.3
65.4
71.0
69.2
70.1
70.9
72.1
56.4
47.7
75.2
43.8
61.5
-
-
-
%
Aboriginal
4.8
18.4
4.0
2.5
4.7
4.9
3.2
7.0
5.5
16.3
3.2
2.5
3.7
1.9
19.5
8.9
6.9
3.5
1.4
4.9
5.8
2.7
11.8
21.6
2.7
1.6
2.9
2.7
8.6
3.2
2.2
9.4
2.5
5.8
10.8
5.5
1.8
17.0
54.7
14.6
19.7
31.8
6.0
13.9
6.0
7.4
2.0
17.7
2.4
0.7
36.6
1.6
3.0
2.2
2.0
35.5
-
-
-
British Columbia 10.00 7.46 8.8 66.3 4.4
116
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.6.2: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in BC
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Communication and General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
above 9.72 %
7.94 - 9.72 %
6.10 - 7.93 %
4.59 - 6.09 %
below 4.59 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(10 districts)
(11 districts)
(13 districts)
(11 districts)
(11 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Fraser -
Cascade
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Foreign
home
language
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Homeownership
Rate
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
% Aboriginal
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information
on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from
Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and
its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Most Challenged
Higher foreign home language rate. Lower
homeownership rate. Higher percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status.
Most Advantaged
Lower foreign home language rate. Higher
homeownership rate. Lower percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status.
117

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
population that is Aboriginal together account for two-thirds
of the power that SES yields in terms of explaining variation
in neighbourhood vulnerability rates. This outcome likely
reflects that children’s communication and knowledge skills
are often evaluated according to norms and ideas that are
more common in dominant Anglo-European circles regardless
of their ethnocultural membership. Deviation from these
norms may nonetheless undermine children’s ability to
integrate and succeed in the broader community as they age.
Homeownership accounts for another quarter of the range
of communication and general knowledge vulnerability rates
that can be attributed to SES. This income variable accounts
for the tremendous variation in cost of living that is evident
in BC, which is due in large part to much higher property
costs in the Lower Mainland and Capital regions.
The share of men in neighbourhoods who fill management
positions also correlates significantly with delays in
communication and knowledge, although the relationship
is of modest importance. As the share of men in management
rises, vulnerability rates on this scale decline.
The relationship between SES and children’s communication
and general knowledge once again suggests that gender
inequality adversely influences child development. The
more that the disparity between median female and median
male income grows in a community, the more we can expect
rates of child vulnerability to rise.
socioeconomic conditions that translate into high rates of
communication and general knowledge vulnerability.
Notwithstanding districts like Prince Rupert and Howe
Sound, a heartland/hinterland division is more evident in
respect of vulnerability rates on this EDI scale than any
other. This pattern directly tracks the influence of SES on
child development.
There are no districts with average EDI results in terms of
general knowledge and communication that also have
completely yellow SES pies. Central Okanagan, Okanagan-
Skaha, Cowichan Valley, Prince George and Peace River
North all achieve mid-range EDI results in terms of
vulnerability and average score. The first four in this group
confront mix-coloured SES pies. However, mid-range EDI
results in Peace River North suggest that the district is
overcoming its entirely red SES pie that signals its relative
socioeconomic disadvantage when compared to the rest of
the province.
Janus Communities
L
ike Peace River North, North Vancouver, Fort Nelson
and Nechako Lakes districts are good news colourcontrasting
communities. Low (green) rates of vulnerability
and high average scores are noteworthy given the (red) SES
challenges found in these districts.
Chameleon Communities
B
oundary, Kootenay Lake and Sooke are green
chameleon districts: low levels of vulnerability and
high average EDI scores reflect socioeconomic conditions
that researchers predict will co-occur with limited rates of
developmental delay. Comox Valley and Maple Ridge/Pitt
Meadows also closely resemble this pattern.
Surrey and Burnaby are both relatively high challenge
districts given their high (red) vulnerability rates and low
(red) average EDI score on this scale. While not apparent
from the provincial map and data table due to their population
size, these districts are also home to four of the five
neighbourhoods in the province that most surpass their SES
by achieving lower vulnerability levels on this EDI scale
than researchers would expect based solely on local social
and economic conditions recorded in the Census (See Table
4.6.5). Surrey is featured in more detail below.
Strikingly, most of the Lower Mainland resembles high
challenge (red) chameleon communities. As the destination
for most immigration in the province and a region in which
property values make home ownership difficult even for
households with above average income, many Lower
Mainland school districts encounter challenging
Districts with colours that contrast in more worrisome ways
include Powell River, Delta, the Gulf Islands, Saanich, and
especially Arrow Lakes. The latter reports high challenge
communication and general knowledge results (low average
score and high vulnerability), despite an entirely green SES
pie.
118
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

While the colour-contrasting character of Nanaimo-
Ladysmith is again not so obvious on the provincial map
because district averages obscure internal neighbourhood
dynamics, this district is home to two of the five BC
neighbourhoods that fall furthest below expectations by
reporting actual vulnerability rates that are considerably
higher than those predicted based solely on local SES (see
Table 4.6.5).
SES in Buffered and Wide Range Community Types
K
amloops-Thompson and Quesnel are two buffered
districts. While their SES pies are mixed, they both
lean toward the disadvantaged end of the SES continuum
in BC. This tendency may explain their relatively low
average scores.
Island North and Haida-Gwaii are wide ranging districts.
Again, their SES pies are mixed. Further research with local
residents is necessary to determine how social and economic
conditions may be contributing to high rates of vulnerability
on the communication and general knowledge scale despite
the overall high average score that these districts enjoy.
One part of the explanation may rest with the possibility
that the English dialect that children hear living among the
districts’ large Aboriginal populations may differ substantially
from the dialect they encounter once they enter the formal
school system.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
119

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Communication Skills and General
Knowledge Vulnerability
Table 4.6.3: Communication, General Knowledge and SES
in Surrey
V
ulnerability rates in Surrey range from less than 1%
in Ocean Park to nearly 26% in Strawberry Hill West
(see Map and Table 4.6.3). This intra-district range in
vulnerability again surpasses the range reported between
districts. Most neighbourhoods in South Surrey enjoy low
vulnerability levels by provincial standards. The more
populous urban core, however, is witness to high rates of
vulnerability that track weak SES. In particular, the
neighbourhoods of Bridgeview, Gateway, Hjorth, and Royal
Heights are quintessential high challenge chameleon
communities in which their entirely red SES pies co-occur
with low (red) average scores and high (red) vulnerability
rates. Bridgeview stands out among these neighbourhoods,
and in the province more generally, because its actual level
of vulnerability is nine percentage points higher than Census
measures of local SES would suggest it should be (see Table
4.6.5 and Figure 4.6.3). Bridgeview thus is similar to other
neighbourhoods featured in this atlas where multiple SES
barriers appear to intersect and exacerbate their adverse
influence on early development over and above what would
be expected based on adding together their individual effects.
Figure 4.6.3: Communication and General Knowledge
Vulnerability in Surrey Neighbourhoods:
Below/Above Predictions
Actual rate
below prediction
Actual rate
above prediction
Neighbourhood
8.96 %
12.08 %
13.61 %
10.36 %
6.50 %
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Neighbourhood
Ocean Park
Sullivan
White Rock
Kensington
Stayte Street
Panorama Ridge North
Grosvenor
Fleetwood South
Panorama Ridge
North Ridge
Crescent Beach
Kirkbride
Fraser Heights
Cloverdale West
South Surrey
Strawberry Hill East
Newton East
Fleetwood East
Fleetwood North
Bear Creek
Fleetwood West
Harvie Road
Fleetwood
Sanford
Cloverdale East
Newton North
Royal Heights
Guildford West
Whalley South
Whalley East
Strawberry Hill South
Cedar Hills
Cindrich
Guildford
Hjorth
Whalley
Beaver Creek
Green Timbers
Newton
Johnson Heights
Gateway
Guildford East
Bridgeview
Newton South
Matheson
Kennedy Trail
Strawberry Hill
Strawberry Hill West
British Columbia
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
135
99
90
75
100
97
139
45
88
57
54
53
118
74
86
40
120
142
130
104
112
112
67
89
106
83
87
126
74
55
89
70
70
92
66
78
68
93
83
101
77
62
56
89
95
49
85
102
EDI (2003)
Percent
Vulnerable
0.75
2.02
2.22
4.00
4.04
4.17
4.38
4.44
4.55
5.26
5.56
5.66
6.84
6.85
6.98
7.50
7.50
7.80
8.46
8.74
8.93
8.93
8.96
9.09
9.62
10.26
10.47
10.57
10.81
10.91
11.36
11.43
11.59
13.33
13.85
14.29
14.71
15.22
15.66
15.84
16.22
17.74
19.64
20.22
20.43
22.45
24.71
25.53
Average
Score
8.36
7.91
7.97
8.23
7.90
7.73
7.95
7.33
7.65
7.27
8.13
7.54
8.00
7.65
7.99
6.61
7.64
7.74
7.64
7.67
7.45
7.71
7.23
7.25
7.68
7.31
7.04
7.03
6.91
7.99
7.13
7.34
7.43
6.76
6.79
7.62
6.22
7.04
6.78
7.15
6.80
6.86
7.26
6.58
7.06
6.53
6.56
6.02
10.00 7.46
Socioeconomic data 2
% Foreign Homeownership
%
Home
Aboriginal
Language Rate
3.0 91.8 1.4
3.4 82.6 1.8
2.0 64.3 0.9
4.6 84.1 1.7
2.1 82.0 1.8
13.8 81.7 0.8
10.2 73.5 3.3
11.1 80.7 0.9
91
17.2 81.0 1.0
11.7 83.5 99 0.6
4.4 74.5 0.8
31.9 63.5 1.5
14.5 90.9 1.5
1.7 72.9 2.6
5.2 82.1 1.0
32.7 65.8 0.3
10.6 69.5 1.9
8.6 89.3 0.8
11.6 80.7 1.4
23.1 71.7 1.6
20.0 69.5 1.8
4.9 86.8 2.4
13.3 78.8 1.0
14.7 79.6 1.5
5.7 88.8 1.1
13.6 72.1 3.5
15.8 66.3 3.7
14.7 43.7 2.9
18.4 61.6 3.1
12.6 49.5 4.7
48.6 55.4 0
99
11.8 63.7 3.3
29.2 65.6 0.9
17.0 68.010
2.1
14.5 50.8 3.8
14.4 53.2 3.4
33.1 65.8 1.4
31.0 60.8 1.5
20.6 54.4 4.4
18.9 71.9 1.2
11.4 35.2 5.8
17.0 77.6 1.5
8.6 69.4 3.8
21.7 75.5 1.8
25.8 55.5 2.8
21.1 63.4 2.1
36.7 58.7 1.1
30.8 58.8 2.4
8.8 66.3 4.4
Strawberry Hill South
Kirkbride
Strawberry Hill East
Panorama Ridge
Bridgeview
11.36
5.66
7.50
4.55
19.64
24.97
17.74
17.86
11.05
10.68
-13.61
-12.08
-10.36
-6.50
8.96
120
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.6.3: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in Surrey
Surrey
Communication and General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable
12.10 % and above
8.27 - 12.09 %
5.78 - 8.26 %
2.87 - 5.77 %
2.86 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Foreign
Home
language
Circles not sized
due to space limitations
Homeownership
Rate
% Aboriginal
Most Challenged
Higher foreign home language rate. Lower
homeownership rate. Higher percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status.
Most Advantaged
Lower foreign home language rate. Higher
homeownership rate. Lower percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Royal
Heights
Cedar
Hills
Scott Road
91
Matheson
Kirkbride
Kennedy
Trail
S.H.
W.
Bridgeview
S.H.
Panorama
Ridge N.
Gateway
Whalley
Newton
Beaver Cr. South
99
10
Hjorth
Whalley
Green
South
Timbers
Cindrich
Bear Creek
S.H.
E.
Newton
S.H.S.
Panorama Ridge
99A
Newton
North
Grosvenor
88 Ave
108 Ave
Whalley East
72 Ave
64 Ave
144 St
1
Johnson
Heights
99A
Glfd
W.
Fleetwood
West
Newton East
Sanford
North Ridge
152 St
104 Ave
Glfd.
Guildford East
152 St
Fleetwood North
Fltwd.
Fleetwood
South
Fraser Heights
Sullivan
1A
Hwy 10 (56 Ave)
Trans - Canada Highway
Fleetwood
East
Kensington
Pacific Hwy
15
(176 St)
Pacific Hwy
(48 Neighbourhoods)
(176 St)
88 Ave
Harvie Road
64 Ave
56 Ave
Cloverdale
West
Fraser Hwy
1
10
Cloverdale
East
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
128 St
King George Hwy
15
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning
Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic data adapted from Statistics
Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in
the mapped datasets. All school districts represent, as nearly as
possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns of counts
and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting
data-requests@help.ubc.ca.
Crescent Beach
Ocean Park
South
Surrey
99
16 Ave
Marine Dr
Stayte
Street
White Rock
16 Ave
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001
Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile. Statistics Canada
information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada.
Information on the availability of the wide range of data from
Statistics Canada can be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional
Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and its
toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
8 Ave
121

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
In contrast to Bridgeview, four Surrey neighbourhoods also
report considerably lower vulnerability levels on this scale
than would be predicted by available Census indicators of
SES (Table 4.6.5 and Figure 4.6.3). Kirkbride and Panorama
Ridge enjoy low vulnerability rates by provincial standards
as a result. While Strawberry Hill East and Strawberry Hill
South still witness EDI outcomes that place them in the
middle and bottom of the provincial pack respectively, their
provincial standing is better than expected given local social
and economic conditions.
Prince Rupert struggles with the highest vulnerability levels
in the province on the communication and general knowledge
scale (see Table 4.6.2). The high rate reflects that two of
its four neighbourhoods report vulnerability rates well above
SES predictions (Table 4.6.5). The reported rate in Seal
Cove is 26%, which is 14 percentage points above the 11%
vulnerability rate that researchers would otherwise predict
based only on Census measurements of local social and
economic characteristics. In Prince Rupert Centre, the
reported rate is 32%, or 12 percentage points above the
predicted vulnerability level (Figure 4.6.4). Like Bridgeview
in Surrey, Prince Rupert Centre is again a high challenge
chameleon neighbourhood in which multiple patterns of
social deprivation appear to intersect in ways that increase
their harmful effects on early learning.
Table 4.6.4: Communication, General Knowledge and SES in
Prince Rupert
Neighbourhood
Cow Bay
South/Ferry
Seal Cove
Centre
EDI children
surveyed (n) 1
38
35
74
44
EDI (2004)
Percent
Vulnerable
7.89
14.29
25.68
31.82
Average
Score
6.61
6.93
6.15
5.90
Socioeconomic data 2
% Foreign
Home
Language
2.3
2.4
1.5
5.5
Homeownership
Rate
71.2
64.7
71.8
35.3
%
Aboriginal
22.0
24.4
28.6
40.5
British Columbia 10.00 7.46 8.8 66.3 4.4
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.6.4: Communication and General Knowledge
Vulnerability in Prince Rupert
Neighbourhoods: Below/Above Predictions
Actual rate below predictions
Actual rate above predictions
14.48 %
12.22 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Centre
Seal Cove
31.82
25.68
19.60
11.20
12.22
14.48
122
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.6.4: Communication, General Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status in Prince Rupert
Prince Rupert
Communication and General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable
Below Predictions
District
#
36
36
36
41
70
87
70
44
59
41
79
85
41
39
68
22
61
54
36
41
61
61
71
91
60
12.10 % and above
8.27 - 12.09 %
5.78 - 8.26 %
2.87 - 5.77 %
2.86 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Foreign
Home
Language
500
250
Circles sized according
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Neighbourhood Name
Strawberry Hill South
Kirkbride
Strawberry Hill East
Government Street
Tofino - Ahousat
Stikine
Sproat Lake
Grand Blvd
Dawson Creek South
Willingdon Heights
Duncan - West
Port McNeill
Deer Lake
Kitsilano
Northfield
Vernon - Central
Cedar Hill - Swan
Houston
Panorama Ridge
Sperling / Westridge
Thetis Lake
Hillside
West Courtenay
Burns Lake
Fort St John - Southeast
Homeownership
Rate
% Aboriginal
Most Challenged
Higher foreign home language rate. Lower
homeownership rate. Higher percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status. 16
Most Advantaged
Lower foreign home language rate. Higher
homeownership rate. Lower percentage of residents
with Aboriginal status.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Actual
Rate
11.36
5.66
7.50
0.00
6.98
8.77
0.00
3.39
0.00
8.62
3.92
1.03
7.25
1.38
1.79
3.13
0.00
0.00
4.55
7.22
0.00
5.15
3.45
3.66
1.92
Ferry
Terminal
Predicted
Rate
19.50
10.99
12.43
12.35
10.39
10.23
9.85
9.51
11.58
13.95
8.66
14.88
10.25
16.26
8.53
8.49
11.94
8.43
11.42
13.59
10.62
14.73
10.10
8.63
13.95
South / Ferry
Difference
-13.61
-12.08
-10.36
-8.57
-7.95
-7.82
-7.62
-7.58
-7.56
-7.53
-7.42
-7.39
-7.36
-7.32
-7.22
-7.11
-7.06
-6.92
-6.50
-6.50
-6.39
-6.36
-6.34
-6.30
-6.23
Park Ave
Above Predictions
District
#
39
61
68
40
68
52
49
39
41
52
47
23
27
39
23
39
33
59
75
23
57
36
34
39
10
2nd Ave W
Centre
5th Ave E
McBride St
Cow Bay
16
Neighbourhood Name
West End
Esquimalt
Cedar - Yellow Point
Queensborough
Cinnabar - Extension
Pr Rupert - Seal Cove
Central Coast
Riley Park
Middlegate
Pr Rupert - Centre
Westview Centre
Raymer
150 Mile / Horsefly
Kensington - Cedar Cottage
Ellison
Mount Pleasant
Chilliwack - South
Dawson Creek North
Mission - North
Hudson
South Fort George
Bridgeview
North Clearbrook
Sunset
Arrow Lakes
Prince
11th Ave E
Actual
Rate
36.96
29.17
21.74
30.00
18.75
25.68
33.33
29.38
31.00
31.82
17.78
16.28
16.98
29.89
14.63
27.37
17.19
16.67
15.38
13.24
22.50
19.64
21.50
29.53
15.00
6th Ave E
Hays Cove Rd
Blvd
Rupert
Predicted
Rate
14.93
9.62
6.49
15.00
4.01
11.20
19.09
15.41
17.43
19.60
6.03
5.03
6.66
19.61
4.35
17.84
7.80
7.28
6.06
4.00
13.35
10.68
12.59
20.75
6.35
(4 Neighbourhoods)
Seal Cove
Table 4.6.5: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
Frederick St
Difference
+22.03
+19.55
+15.25
+15.00
+14.74
+14.48
+14.24
+13.97
+13.57
+12.22
+11.75
+11.25
+10.32
+10.28
+10.28
+9.53
+9.39
+9.39
+9.32
+9.24
+9.15
+8.96
+8.91
+8.78
+8.65
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
123

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Among Aboriginal Children in BC
W
e have already seen that the share of Aboriginal
residents in a neighbourhood joins with the share
of people who speak a language other than English at home
to predict vulnerability on the EDI communication skills
and general knowledge scale. It is therefore valuable for
policy makers to engage with local elders, parents and other
Aboriginal leaders to examine communication skill patterns
among this important part of the BC population.
At the neighbourhood level, the vulnerability range on this
scale for the entire population starts at 0% and rises to 37%.
Across Aboriginal school district neighbourhoods, the range
is identical (see Table 4.6.7).
Table 4.6.7: Neighbourhood Range in Communication and
General Knowledge Vulnerability: Aboriginal
Children and All Children
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
Total Population
Lowest Rate
Highest Rate
0 %
37.0 %
0 %
37.0 %
Since the primary factor affecting vulnerability on this scale
is English as a second language, why should the range for
Aboriginal children still be so wide? The answer appears
to be that the language experience of Aboriginal children in
some rural and remote areas is sufficiently different from
what they hear in school that it is as though the kindergarten
teacher is speaking an unknown language. This understanding
is reflected in the existence of at least one ‘English as a
second dialect’ program in BC, which was implemented by
the Prince Rupert school district.
Especially high rates of vulnerability on this scale are found
among Aboriginal children in Cowichan Valley, Prince
Rupert and Howe Sound (Map 4.6.6). It is worth noting
that vulnerability rates in the 30%-range for Aboriginal
children in Cowichan and Howe Sound is well out of step
with the more mid-range vulnerability levels (7%-9%) that
these districts report for all children (Table 4.6.6).
Table 4.6.6: Communication, General Knowledge and
Aboriginal Children
SD#
35
46
81
8
53
36
6
37
47
54
5
92
71
75
72
34
70
28
62
74
61
82
87
73
40
44
41
43
42
23
33
58
59
27
22
60
50
67
39
57
85
91
68
78
48
52
79
10
19
20
38
45
49
51
63
64
69
83
84
District name
Langley
Sunshine Coast
Fort Nelson
Kootenay Lake
Okanagan - Similkameen
Surrey
Rocky Mountain
Delta
Powell River
Bulkley Valley
Southeast Kootenay
Nisga'a
Comox Valley
Mission
Campbell River
Abbotsford
Alberni
Quesnel
Sooke
Gold Trail
Greater Victoria
Coast Mountains
Stikine
Kamloops - Thompson
New Westminster
North Vancouver
Burnaby
Coquitlam
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Central Okanagan
Chilliwack
Nicola - Similkameen
Peace River South
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Vernon
Peace River North
Haida Gwaii
Okanagan - Skaha
Vancouver 1
Prince George
Island North
Nechako Lakes
Nanaimo
Fraser - Cascade
Howe Sound 1
Prince Rupert
Cowichan Valley
Arrow Lakes
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Richmond
West Vancouver
Central Coast
Boundary
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Qualicum
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.38
3.23
3.51
4.26
4.35
4.76
5.00
6.85
7.14
7.32
7.69
7.92
9.91
10.43
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.27
11.54
12.20
12.68
13.04
13.33
13.64
13.73
13.89
14.04
15.00
15.38
15.66
17.28
17.95
18.18
18.75
19.15
19.44
19.54
20.00
20.34
24.00
24.24
29.63
30.51
36.96
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal %
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.38
3.23
3.51
4.26
4.35
4.76
5.00
6.85
7.14
7.32
7.69
7.92
9.91
10.43
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.27
11.54
12.20
12.68
13.04
13.33
13.64
13.73
13.89
14.04
15.00
15.38
15.66
17.28
17.95
18.18
18.75
19.15
19.44
19.54
20.00
20.34
24.00
24.24
29.63
30.51
36.96
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial
Percent
Vulnerable
4.59
0.43
2.74
4.22
7.46
10.25
3.72
8.59
9.46
7.93
4.21
-
5.42
9.20
4.02
11.28
4.21
5.09
4.63
9.17
7.32
6.73
8.77
5.17
14.89
4.99
14.17
6.87
6.09
6.97
5.92
8.75
8.78
9.20
3.20
6.39
13.11
6.88
20.78
7.07
8.82
5.05
8.46
10.28
9.00
22.22
7.02
15.00
6.74
3.99
12.06
5.42
-
2.78
7.04
7.07
2.87
5.72
-
British Columbia 12.70 12.70 10.00
124
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.6.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on the Communication and General Knowledge Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Communication and General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable,
Aboriginal Colour Codes
above 18.18 %
13.34 - 18.18 %
10.44 - 13.33 %
5.01 - 10.43 %
below 5.01 %
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(11 districts)
(10 districts)
(9 districts)
(7 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.6.7: Communication and General Knowledge
Vulnerability: Aboriginal Children
Map 4.6.8: Communication and General Knowledge Vulnerability:
All Children
Communication and
General Knowledge
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 9.72 %
7.94 - 9.72 %
6.10 - 7.93 %
4.59 - 6.09 %
below 4.59 %
125

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The Sunshine Coast, Fort Nelson and Langley stand out for
reporting no vulnerability on the communication and general
knowledge scale among Aboriginal children (Map 4.6.6).
The Aboriginal vulnerability rate is thus lower in these
districts than is the rate for the general population, as it also
is in Kootenay Lake, Okanagan-Similkameen, Surrey, Powell
River and others (Table 4.6.6).
Skidegate Early Childhood Education (ECE) Program: An Innovative Community Asset
T
he Northwest Community College, in
partnership with the Skidegate Band Council
and the Victoria Foundation, is offering a unique
community-based Early Childhood Education
Program in Skidegate.
The College program is designed to integrate village
elders as an important part of early childhood
education training so that they share knowledge
about traditional childrearing practices with students.
The program also provides opportunities for parents
to explore relevant caregiving issues, such as
facilitating children’s learning through play. Parents
who work during the week are invited to participate
through weekend workshops prepared by the ECE
students in the College program under the guidance
of their instructor.
Current staff and facilities at the Skidegate Daycare
and the HeadStart program enhance the College
program by serving as mentors for the ECE students
and providing opportunities to put theory into
practice in their own village. Similarly, community
support workers are involved in ECE classes to
provide job mentoring as students complete the
program.
to early childhood development, which prioritizes
a long-term commitment to community children.
By adding a new level of cohesion to early
childhood services available for the children and
parents within the local village, the Skidegate ECE
program aims to provide effective, timely, early
intervention for families.
The community’s decision to develop the new
comprehensive ECE program was motivated in
part by findings from the EDI, which illuminated
high levels of vulnerability within Skidegate. In
response, the Skidegate Band Council initiated a
dialogue with the College to develop an appropriate
community-driven response, and applied for funding
from the Victoria Foundation. The new College
program is thus another example of community
residents engaging with early childhood
development research to marshal and coordinate
local resources with the intention of creating new
community assets.
For more information about the Skidegate ECE
Program contact:
Ms. Vonnie Hutchingson, Haida Education Director
Email: vhutchingson@sd50.bc.ca
The Skidegate ECE program is one component of
Haida Gwaii’s ongoing comprehensive approach
126
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

127
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
4.7 Socioeconomic Status and Vulnerability on Any EDI
Scale
Socioeconomic Status and Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale
T
he relationship between SES and rates of vulnerability
on at least one EDI scale is nearly as large as the
relationship reported for SES and communications skills
and general knowledge. Table 4.7.1 lists seven SES variables
that account for 43% of the variation in vulnerability rates
across BC neighbourhoods (see Figure 4.7.1).
Table 4.7.1: Significant SES Predictors of Vulnerability on
Any EDI Scale
Variable
(r 2 = 0.427)
% Aboriginal
Percentage of population reporting
any Aboriginal status
% Males, Management
Percentage of males employed in
management positions
% First Generation Canadians
Percentage of citizens who were born
in a country other than Canada
Influence on
Vulnerability as
SES Variable Increases
Importance
Score
24.7
24.6
14.6
% Low Income 12.1
Percentage of population living
below the low-income cut-off (LICO)
Employment Rate, with children 10.6
Employment rate among families
with children under six
% Males, No Unpaid Child Care 8.0
Percentage of males performing
no unpaid child care
% Non-migrant Movers 5.3
Percentage of population that changed addresses,
but remained within the same city or town
Figure 4.7.1: Relationship Between Vulnerability on Any
Scale and SES
unexplained
variation
42.7 % of the variation in vulnerability in any
EDI scale across neighbourhoods correlates
with neighbourhood SES.
SES Characteristics that Matter Most for Vulnerability on
Any EDI Scale
T
he seven SES variables that correlate significantly
with rates of vulnerability on one or more scale fall
into three tiers of importance.
The two most important are the share of the neighbourhood
population that is Aboriginal and the percentage of men
Table 4.7.2: Vulnerability on Any Scale and SES
20
45
6
19
72
22
8
44
51
43
83
35
5
37
62
42
61
73
60
79
64
53
91
70
33
36
34
63
46
28
71
57
54
27
23
10
74
69
67
78
38
59
50
58
75
48
68
40
81
82
47
41
87
85
39
52
49
84
92
Kootenay - Columbia
West Vancouver
Rocky Mountain
Revelstoke
Campbell River
Vernon
Kootenay Lake
North Vancouver
Boundary
Coquitlam
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Langley
Southeast Kootenay
Delta
Sooke
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Greater Victoria
Kamloops - Thompson
Peace River North
Cowichan Valley
Gulf Islands
Okanangan - Similkameen
Nechako Lakes
Alberni
Chilliwack
Surrey
Abbotsford
Saanich
Sunshine Coast
Quesnel
Comox Valley
Prince George
Bulkley Valley
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Central Okanagan
Arrow Lakes
Gold Trail
Qualicum
Okanagan - Skaha
Fraser - Cascade
Richmond
Peace River South
Haida Gwaii
Nicola - Similkameen
Mission
Howe Sound
Nanaimo - Ladysmith
New Westminster
Fort Nelson
Coast Mountains
Powell River
Burnaby
Stikine
Island North
Vancouver
Prince Rupert
Central Coast
Island West
Nisga'a
EDI
SD# District name Percent
Vulnerable
13.36
14.34
14.60
15.56
16.81
17.23
18.06
18.28
18.68
18.87
18.91
18.94
19.87
19.98
20.64
22.13
22.47
22.54
22.60
22.70
22.77
22.88
22.90
23.24
23.46
23.49
23.49
23.54
23.71
23.91
23.98
24.12
24.40
24.40
24.55
25.00
25.00
25.09
25.12
26.51
26.70
27.59
27.87
28.13
28.31
28.61
28.93
29.14
29.33
29.43
29.60
29.99
32.76
33.47
37.95
39.56
-
-
-
Socioeconomic data 1
%
Aboriginal
3.2
1.4
4.9
2.7
7.0
4.7
3.2
1.9
4.0
1.6
4.9
2.5
5.5
1.8
3.7
2.7
2.5
6.9
11.8
8.6
2.2
5.8
19.5
16.3
5.8
2.0
2.4
3.2
4.8
8.9
3.5
9.4
10.8
13.9
2.7
2.2
31.8
2.5
2.9
17.7
0.7
14.6
36.6
17.0
6.0
7.4
5.5
3.0
18.4
21.6
6.0
1.6
54.7
19.7
2.0
35.5
-
-
-
% Males,
Management
8.6
27.6
10.9
11.1
9.2
10.8
11.3
18.6
9.4
15.8
10.9
15.3
11.3
15.7
11.5
12.8
12.6
10.6
10.1
11.0
16.0
8.3
6.7
8.5
10.0
12.9
10.3
16.9
12.0
7.9
9.8
9.4
10.4
8.7
13.9
8.9
7.1
14.3
12.8
12.4
16.5
8.9
9.9
7.9
9.6
13.6
11.0
10.8
10.1
8.7
8.3
13.5
11.9
9.3
13.6
9.4
-
-
-
% First
Generation
Canadians
13.0
41.2
12.7
12.8
16.0
14.8
14.9
37.8
13.0
38.5
12.9
19.9
11.8
32.4
15.4
21.5
24.3
12.8
8.6
17.5
28.3
24.6
13.2
14.1
17.7
40.3
30.2
24.6
20.3
12.8
16.3
12.7
16.2
14.4
16.9
18.3
12.4
22.3
19.2
17.7
61.0
9.8
11.2
12.3
19.3
21.0
19.2
33.3
6.2
17.9
16.9
54.2
13.8
11.1
53.1
17.4
-
-
-
British Columbia 24.50 4.4 12.9 31.5
128
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.7.2: Vulnerability on Any Scale and Socioeconomic Status
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
Percent Vulnerable
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
above 28.61 %
24.41 - 28.61 %
22.71 - 24.40 %
18.88 - 22.70 %
below 18.87 %
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(10 districts)
(12 districts)
(14 districts)
(10 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Fraser -
Cascade
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
% Aboriginal
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
% Males,
Management
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
% First
Generation
Canadians
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics Canada. Information
on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can be obtained from
Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at http://www.statcan.ca, and
its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Most Challenged
Higher percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Lower
percentage of males in management. Higher
percentage of first generation Canadians.
Most Advantaged
Lower percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Higher
percentage of males in management. Lower
percentage of first generation Canadians.
129

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
who work as managers in the neighbourhood. Each counts
for one-quarter of the explanatory power that SES can offer
in accounting for the disparity in vulnerability rates across
the province.
A second tier of socioeconomic factors includes the share
of residents who are first generation Canadian, who live
below LICO, and employment patterns for parents with
children under age six. These three variables each account
for more than 10% of the variation in vulnerability levels
between BC neighbourhoods.
The bottom tier of SES variables includes the share of men
in the neighbourhood who provide no unpaid child care and
the share of residents who changed residence within the last
five years without moving between towns or cites. While
these variables are still significant predictors of vulnerability
levels, their explanatory power is not as strong as the top
two SES factors.
These seven socioeconomic variables indicate that
neighbourhood environments influence vulnerability in
numerous ways. The Aboriginal and first generation variables
draw attention to relationships between vulnerability, the
power dynamics that accompany ethnocultural divisions,
and the challenges associated with culturally adapting to a
new home.
Chameleon Communities
S
ince there are seven SES indicators that correlate
significantly with vulnerability on one or more EDI
scale, it is more difficult to observe Chameleon and Janus
trends directly from Map 4.7.2, which only reports about
three socioeconomic factors.
Working within this limitation, Kootenay Lake, Revelstoke,
Southeast Kootenay, and Sooke best approximate the green
chameleon SES-EDI pattern of low levels of vulnerability
that reflect social and economic conditions that typically
co-occur with limited developmental delay (note that two
of their SES pie slices are green and the third is yellow).
There are no obvious cases of red chameleon communities,
which report high vulnerability levels that reflect uniformly
disadvantaged social and economic conditions. However,
Prince Rupert, Island North, Coast Mountains and Nicola-
Similkameen all have high vulnerability levels that co-occur
with two red SES pie slices.
The most striking observation about the SES pies is that
they are consistently multi-coloured regardless of the EDI
outcomes in districts.
The percentage of men in management, people living below
LICO, and employment variables signal that class and
economic conditions in a neighbourhood also exert substantial
influence over the development of local children.
Just as importantly, the share of men who do not perform
any unpaid child care variable in turn intersects with the
share of men in management and the share of the population
living below LICO (which is disproportionately female) to
remind readers about the influence that the gender division
of labour yields over children’s early developmental
trajectories.
Finally, the non-migrant movers variable should motivate
researchers and policy makers to remain attentive to issues
of transiency, which appear to undermine the conditions for
optimal development among young children.
Janus Communities
V
ancouver, Stikine, Burnaby, Richmond, Okanagan-
Skaha, Qualicum and Central Okanagan represent
potentially worrisome Janus communities given that they
all report high (red) levels of vulnerability even though two
of three slices on their SES pie charts are green. The latter
stands out for having higher vulnerability levels than would
normally be associated with the social and economic
conditions in the area. Central Okanagan is home to four
neighbourhoods where actual vulnerability levels are at least
14 percentage points higher than we would anticipate given
Census measures of local SES.
130
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

131
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
School District Maps of Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale
C
ampbell River and Nanaimo are districts with
vulnerability rates on at least one EDI scale that tend
toward opposite ends of the provincial continuum. Campbell
River belongs to the quintile of districts that report the lowest
vulnerability rates, in part because the Centre neighbourhood
overcomes SES barriers to achieve actual vulnerability levels
that are 14 percentage points lower than predicted (see Table
4.7.5 and Figure 4.7.3). Nonetheless, the town is home to
two neighbourhoods that report very high vulnerability levels
according to provincial standards (Map 4.7.3): Campbell
River North and Quinsam-Strathcona.
Table 4.7.3: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and SES in
Campbell River
Neighbourhood
Rockland
Shelter Point
Campbell River - South
Campbell River - Centre
Northern Gulf Islands
Quinsam - Strathcona
Campbell River N. / Sayward
EDI (2003-04)
EDI children Percent
surveyed (n) 1 Vulnerable
219
45
247
68
68
113
59
10.50
13.33
13.36
17.65
17.65
28.32
32.20
Socioeconomic data 2
%
Aboriginal
3.0
7.9
3.4
6.9
9.0
18.3
4.9
% Males,
Management
11.2
9.3
9.3
8.4
9.8
4.2
10.9
% First
Generation
Canadians
18.1
9.5
15.3
15.4
26.9
11.9
14.7
British Columbia 24.50 4.4 12.9 31.5
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area
Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.7.3: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale in Campbell
River Neighbourhoods: Below/Above
Predictions
Actual rate
below prediction
Actual rate
above prediction
13.87 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Centre 17.85 31.52 -13.87
132
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

South Alder
Dogwood
Map 4.7.3: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Socioeconomic Status in Campbell River
Campbell River
Vulnerable on One or More Scales
Percent Vulnerable
31.63 % and above
25.97 - 31.62 %
20.72 - 25.96 %
14.90 - 20.71 %
14.89 % and below
Socioeconomic Status
Socioeconomic Variables
1,000
500
% Aboriginal % Males,
250
Management
% First
Generation
Circles sized according Canadians
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Most Challenged
Higher percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Lower
percentage of males in management. Higher
percentage of first generation Canadians.
Most Advantaged
Lower percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Higher
percentage of males in management. Lower
percentage of first generation Canadians.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Campbell River
North/Sayward
28
19
Quinsam -
Strathcona
19
New Island Hwy
9th
Pinecrest
Rockland
Campbell River
Centre
19
Campbell River -
South
Shelter
Point
Nothern
Gulf Islands
19 A
(7 Neighbourhoods)
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
133

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
Conversely, Nanaimo belongs to the quintile of school
districts that report the highest vulnerability rates on one or
more EDI scale in the province. This outcome reflects in
part that the Cedar-Yellow Point area is among the five
neighbourhoods in the province that report actual vulnerability
rates that are most above predictions based on local social
and economic conditions (Table 4.7.5 and Figure 4.7.4).
These neighbourhood results contrast substantially, however,
with two other Nanaimo neighbourhoods that witness very
low levels of vulnerability according to provincial norms:
Hammond Bay and Pleasant Valley-Rutherford.
A comparison of these two districts is thus a helpful reminder
that both high and low vulnerability districts will be home
to neighbourhoods that encounter high and low levels of
vulnerability. The difference between the districts in these
quintiles is thus a matter of degree: a larger proportion of
neighbourhoods in high vulnerability districts report high
risk rates when compared to the share of neighbourhoods
that report high risk rates in low vulnerability communities.
Table 4.7.4: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and SES in
Nanaimo
Neighbourhood
Hammond Bay
Pleasant Valley - Rutherford
Northfield
Departure Bay
Long Lake
Diver Lake
Lantzville - Dover
Nanaimo - Downtown
Cinnabar - Extension
Westwood
Newcastle - Townsite
South Nanaimo
Cedar - Yellow Point
EDI (2003)
EDI children Percent
surveyed (n) 1 Vulnerable
54
51
57
70
43
61
79
85
49
40
65
98
46
12.96
17.65
21.05
22.86
23.26
24.59
25.32
25.88
28.57
30.00
41.54
41.84
50.00
Socioeconomic data 2
%
Aboriginal
0.9
2.5
3.9
2.7
2.7
9.0
5.0
8.1
3.8
1.8
5.3
12.8
10.5
% Males,
Management
17.0
13.8
12.8
13.5
10.8
10.2
16.2
8.2
10.7
10.9
9.4
6.5
8.3
% First
Generation
Canadians
23.4
21.7
22.5
24.0
18.2
17.1
22.4
17.1
14.1
19.3
18.7
16.7
16.6
British Columbia 24.50 4.4 12.9 31.5
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2003, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC. Socioeconomic
data adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semi-custom Area Profile.
1 “EDI children surveyed” represents the number of EDI children in the mapped datasets. All
school districts represent, as nearly as possible, full population surveys. Detailed breakdowns
of counts and years surveyed may be obtained through HELP by contacting datarequests@help.ubc.ca.
2 All socioeconomic data is adapted from Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Population, Semicustom
Area Profile. Statistics Canada information is used with the permission of Statistics
Canada. Information on the availability of the wide range of data from Statistics Canada can
be obtained from Statistics Canada’s Regional Offices, its World Wide Web site at
http://www.statcan.ca, and its toll-free access number 1-800-263-1136.
Figure 4.7.4: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale in Nanaimo
Neighbourhoods: Below/Above
Predictions
Actual rate
below prediction
Actual rate
above prediction
24.17 %
Neighbourhood
Actual
Rate
Predicted
Rate
Difference
Cedar - Yellow Point 50.00 25.83 24.17
134
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Nicol
Map 4.7.4: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Socioeconomic Status in Nanaimo
Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
Percent Vulnerable
Socioeconomic Status
Below Predictions
District
#
79
20
57
41
22
61
39
61
40
36
44
64
83
79
72
74
28
43
36
75
22
70
36
36
73
Nanaimo
31.63 % and above
25.97 - 31.62 %
20.72 - 25.96 %
14.90 - 20.71 %
14.89 % and below
Socioeconomic Variables
1,000
500
% Aboriginal % Males,
250
Management
% First Generation
Circles sized according Canadians
to the number of children
aged 0-4 in each neighbourhood
Most Challenged
Higher percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Lower
percentage of males in management. Higher
percentage of first generation Canadians.
Most Advantaged
Lower percentage reporting Aboriginal status. Higher
percentage of males in management. Lower
percentage of first generation Canadians.
All of the above are classified in quintiles according to
province-wide distribution.
Neighbourhood Name
Duncan - West
Castlegar
North Highlands
Government Street
Vernon - Central
Cedar Hill - Swan
University Lands
Mayfair
Sapperton
Strawberry Hill South
Grand Blvd
Outer Gulf Islands
Armstrong / Spallumcheen
Maple Bay
Campbell River - Centre
Thompson Canyon
Nazko / Blackwater
Como Lake / Poirier
Green Timbers
Hatzic
Vernon - West
Sproat Lake
Newton
White Rock
Kamloops - Downtown
Actual
Rate
11.76
2.47
5.13
2.94
14.71
9.21
17.74
14.89
9.80
20.22
10.17
8.00
5.56
6.12
17.65
18.97
14.58
11.61
22.58
10.45
14.29
15.79
21.69
6.67
15.79
Lantzville -
Dover
19
19 A
Pleasant Valley -
Rutherford
Predicted
Rate
35.57
20.38
22.33
19.71
30.58
24.58
32.51
29.63
24.50
34.86
24.74
22.17
19.72
20.15
31.52
32.78
28.11
25.01
35.62
23.49
27.31
28.70
34.31
19.08
27.90
Island Hwy
Mostar
Hammond Bay Rd
Long Lake
Nanaimo Pkwy
Difference
-23.81
-17.91
-17.20
-16.77
-15.87
-15.37
-14.77
-14.74
-14.70
-14.64
-14.57
-14.17
-14.16
-14.03
-13.87
-13.81
-13.53
-13.40
-13.04
-13.04
-13.02
-12.91
-12.62
-12.41
-12.11
Hammond Bay
19 A Departure
Bay
Diver Lake
Departure
Bay Ferry
1
Northfield
Newcastle-
Westwood
Townsite
19
Downtown
1
Jingle Pot Rd
Departure Bay Rd
Bowen
Rd
Island Hwy
Above Predictions
District
#
33
23
68
23
75
71
71
61
41
85
40
82
57
23
75
39
35
23
39
48
39
52
57
36
Townsite Rd
Bowen Rd
5th St
South
Nanaimo
Cinnabar -
Extension
Table 4.7.5: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale: Actual Neighbourhood Rates Furthest Below and Above Predictions
Harewood
Extension Rd
Neighbourhood Name
Chilliwack - South
Chief Tomat
Cedar - Yellow Point
Black Mountain
Mission - North
Glacierview / Vanier
South Courtenay
Esquimalt
Burnaby Mountain
Port Hardy
Downtown - Stewardson
Terrace - Thornhill
South Fort George
Matheson
Mission - Downtown
Marpole
Rural South Langley
Belgo / Quigley
Riley Park
Pemberton
Sunset
Pr Rupert - Centre
Peden Hill
Cloverdale East
Actual
Rate
57.81
47.46
50.00
38.00
38.46
48.28
46.67
49.32
45.28
46.48
49.15
43.75
56.25
46.67
48.00
50.00
32.79
38.10
46.58
40.43
50.87
59.09
36.36
28.30
Cedar Rd
1
Duke
Point
Ferry
19
(13 Neighbourhoods)
Predicted
Rate
29.94
21.50
25.83
15.94
18.31
28.14
26.62
29.29
25.93
27.56
30.83
25.47
39.33
29.90
31.30
33.95
17.94
23.65
32.46
26.35
37.02
45.47
22.99
14.97
Gabriola
Island
Data for Gabriola not
reported due to low
sample size
Cedar - Yellow Point
Difference
+27.87
+25.96
+24.17
+22.06
+20.15
+20.14
+20.05
+20.03
+19.35
+18.92
+18.32
+18.28
+16.92
+16.77
+16.70
+16.05
+14.85
+14.45
+14.12
+14.08
+13.85
+13.62
+13.37
+13.33
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
135

EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Part Two: British Columbia Maps of EDI - SES Relationships
The State of Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale Among
Aboriginal Children in BC
T
he level of vulnerability on any EDI scale category
for the entire population ranges across BC
neighbourhoods from a low of 2.4% to a high of 59.1%.
Among Aboriginal school district neighbourhoods the range
is 19.2% in Rocky Mountain, to 61.7% in Island North
(Table 4.7.7). Thus, for Aboriginal children the range of
vulnerability is very wide, stretching from better-thanaverage
vulnerability (less than 24% is better than average)
to high vulnerability. Looking across the five scales of the
EDI, it is clear that physical development and language or
cognitive issues pose the greatest challenge for Aboriginal
ECD at present, followed by communication skills and
general knowledge, particularly in rural and remote areas.
Social and emotional development pose the lowest level of
challenge overall for children in this ethnic group.
Column one in Table 4.7.6 lists the 47 Aboriginal school
district neighbourhoods in order of vulnerability (see also
Map 4.7.6). This column frames the challenge of finding
out what is going well in the dark green communities and
finding ways to extend these attributes to the rest of the
Aboriginal population in BC. The Rocky Mountain district
may merit particular attention since the 19% vulnerability
rate it reports for Aboriginal children places it in the top
quintile (20 percent) of districts irrespective of whether we
focus only on vulnerability levels among Aboriginals or the
population as a whole (see Map 4.7.7).
Table 4.7.7: Neighbourhood Range in Vulnerability on Any
EDI Scale: Aboriginal Children and All Children
Vulnerable on One or More Domains
Aboriginal Population
Lowest Vulnerability
Highest Vulnerability
Total Population
Lowest Vulnerability
Highest Vulnerability
19.2
61.7
2.4
59.1
Table 4.7.6: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale and Aboriginal
Children
SD#
6
35
53
74
37
8
36
67
62
43
61
34
72
42
22
73
46
28
70
44
81
23
59
87
78
5
71
60
40
50
58
27
57
33
54
41
75
82
48
91
52
68
79
47
92
39
85
10
19
20
38
45
49
51
63
64
69
83
84
District name
Rocky Mountain
Langley
Okan. - Similkameen
Gold Trail
Delta
Kootenay Lake
Surrey
Okanagan - Skaha
Sooke
Coquitlam
Greater Victoria
Abbotsford
Campbell River
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows
Vernon
Kamloops - Thompson
Sunshine Coast
Quesnel
Alberni
North Vancouver
Fort Nelson
Central Okanagan
Peace River South
Stikine
Fraser - Cascade
Southeast Kootenay
Comox Valley
Peace River North
New Westminster
Haida Gwaii
Nicola - Similkameen
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Prince George
Chilliwack
Bulkley Valley
Burnaby
Mission
Coast Mountains
Howe Sound 1
Nechako Lakes
Prince Rupert
Nanaimo
Cowichan Valley
Powell River
Nisga'a
Vancouver 1
Island North
Arrow Lakes
Revelstoke
Kootenay - Columbia
Richmond
West Vancouver
Central Coast
Boundary
Saanich
Gulf Islands
Qualicum
North Okanagan - Shuswap
Island West
Aboriginal
Percent
Vulnerable
19.15
25.58
25.81
25.93
26.09
26.19
27.59
27.66
27.78
28.43
30.99
31.53
31.68
33.33
35.90
36.62
38.10
39.13
39.13
40.00
40.00
40.35
40.96
41.46
42.42
42.47
42.86
43.18
43.48
43.75
44.23
44.44
44.83
45.00
45.00
45.45
46.15
46.15
48.15
49.15
50.00
50.00
54.35
57.14
57.14
60.42
61.67
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Aboriginal %
Vulnerable
(Provincial
Colour Codes)
19.15
25.58
25.81
25.93
26.09
26.19
27.59
27.66
27.78
28.43
30.99
31.53
31.68
33.33
35.90
36.62
38.10
39.13
39.13
40.00
40.00
40.35
40.96
41.46
42.42
42.47
42.86
43.18
43.48
43.75
44.23
44.44
44.83
45.00
45.00
45.45
46.15
46.15
48.15
49.15
50.00
50.00
54.35
57.14
57.14
60.42
61.67
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Provincial
Percent
Vulnerable
14.60
18.94
22.88
25.00
19.98
18.06
23.49
25.12
20.64
18.87
22.47
23.49
16.81
22.13
17.23
22.54
23.71
23.91
23.24
18.28
29.33
24.55
27.59
32.76
26.51
19.87
23.98
22.60
29.14
27.87
28.13
24.40
24.12
23.46
24.40
29.99
28.31
29.43
25.33
22.90
39.56
28.93
22.70
29.60
-
34.47
33.47
25.00
15.56
13.36
26.70
14.34
-
18.68
23.54
22.77
25.09
18.91
-
British Columbia 39.31 39.31 24.50
136
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 4.7.6: Percent of Aboriginal Children Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Alberni
Comox
Valley
Cowichan
Valley
Sooke
Island
North
Campbell
River
Qualicum
Nanaimo -
Ladysmith
Haida Gwaii /
Queen Charlotte
Powell
River
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Victoria
Central
Coast
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Bulkley
Valley
Coast
Mountains
Prince
Rupert
Stikine
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Vancouver
North
Vancouver
Richmond
Nechako
Lakes
Burnaby
Delta
Fort
Nelson
Prince
George
Quesnel
New
Westminster
Coquitlam
Surrey
Peace
River
North
Peace
River
South
Cariboo-
Chilcotin Kamloops -
Thompson
Maple Ridge -
Pitt Meadows
Gold
Trail
Langley
N Okan. -
Shuswap
Mission
Vulnerable on Any EDI Scale
Percent Vulnerable,
Aboriginal Colour Codes
above 46.15 %
43.76 - 46.15 %
39.14 - 43.75 %
30.99 - 39.13 %
below 30.99 %
Kootenay-
Columbia
Okan.-
Skaha
Nicola-
Similk.
Fraser -
Cascade
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
(9 districts)
(8 districts)
(11 districts)
(9 districts)
(10 districts)
all values shown in table on previous page
Revelstoke
Vernon
Central
Okanagan
(59 School districts)
Rocky
Mountain
Southeast
Kootenay
Arrow
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Boundary
Okanagan -
Similkameen
Data Source:
Early Development Instrument 2000 - 2004, Human Early Learning Partnership, UBC.
1 Note that data displayed for Vancouver and Howe Sound represents children surveyed in 2004,
not 2000 as is shown in previous provincial maps. This is done because the corresponding
Aboriginal population was sampled in 2004.
CHAPTER FOUR - EDI Outcomes, Socioeconomic Status and the Social Care Thesis
Map 4.7.7: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale:
Aboriginal Children
Map 4.7.8: Vulnerability on Any EDI Scale:
All Children
Vulnerable on
Any EDI Scale
Percent Vulnerable,
Provincial Colour
Codes
above 28.61 %
24.41 - 28.61 %
22.71 - 24.40 %
18.88 - 22.70 %
below 18.88 %
137

138
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

5
Chapter Five:
Implications for Community Action
and Public Policy
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
139

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part One: Thinking Strategically About ECD: An Introduction
5.1 How to Use the Atlas to Inform Planning and Policy
How to Use the Atlas to Inform Planning and Policy
T
he evidence presented in this atlas highlights important
EDI, SES, and demographic data to create a
comprehensive picture of early childhood development in
BC. This picture provides the foundation for developing
strategic approaches to early childhood programming for
community planners and policy makers.
Early child development can be influenced at multiple levels
of social aggregation: the family, neighbourhood, community
and economy. This recognition underscores the importance
of developing an ECD strategy that takes into account the
broad mix of services and programs that are required for
optimizing social care and early development, as well as
the various levels of social aggregation that policies must
support.
Mix of Services: The Early Child Development Basket
F
irst Call (2003), the BC Child and Youth Advocacy
Coalition, published a Framework for Action that
presents a comprehensive “basket” of supports, services,
and strategies to foster healthy child development. First
Call employs the basket metaphor to convey the point that
any successful mix of early childhood services will require
a strong, yet flexible, provincial infrastructure to distribute
resources efficiently and fairly across BC communities.
Many communities in the province are using the First Call
framework to conceptualize and set up their local system of
early childhood services.
As Figure 5.1.1 illustrates, First Call identifies five key
elements that make up the ECD basket:
1. A continuum of supports and services (inside
the basket)
public health services
supports for parents, families and other
caregivers
targeted early intervention supports and
services
access strategies (information & referral
services, designated access resources)
2. Practitioners involved directly in ECD (basket
sides)
3. Community collaboration, infrastructure and
action (basket sides)
4. Research and accountability mechanisms
(guiding handles)
5. Government commitment, policy support and
long-term funding (essential basket base)
While the components of the Early Childhood Development
Basket are not new, First Call proposes that the components
of the basket be “interwoven, strengthened, enhanced and
transformed into an intentionally integrated, adequately
resourced province-wide ECD approach” (p. 8). For more
information, visit First Call’s website to download a copy
of the report: www.firstcallbc.org.
Figure 5.1.1: Early Child Development Basket
Public
health
services
Early intervention
supports & services
Quality
childcare
community
collaboration,
infrastructure,
action
Accountability
and
Research
Access
Support for
parents, families,
and caregivers
ECD
Practitioners
policy and funding
140
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Levels of Intervention: Civil Society, Universal, Targeted
and Clinical Programs
A
second consideration in developing a strategic
approach to early child development is understanding
and defining the levels of intervention that are available
across communities, including clinical, targeted, universal,
and civil society interventions. Communities are well served
when they explore the relationships between each of these
levels of intervention to determine their implications for
program and policy development.
Figure 5.1.2: Levels of Policy Intervention
Clinical
Targeted
Universal
Civil Society
The levels of intervention are portrayed in Figure 5.1.2. It
highlights the all-encompassing influence that civil society
dynamics yield over policy design, implementation, and use
by local residents. Upon the broad base of civil society
stands a pyramid of ECD-specific policies and programs.
The pyramid shape reflects that universal programs are for
all children in the community, and that the range of children
eligible for programs decreases as one moves from the base
of the pyramid toward its peak (clinical programs). The
following definitions describe the terms used in this model:
Civil society interventions are designed to make
communities “friendlier” to families and children. Examples
of civil society interventions include: socioeconomically
diverse neighbourhoods that reduce class, race and gender
inequalities; access to parks and play spaces; strong
intersectoral support for early child development;
neighbourhood safety, and so on. Many of these interventions
relate to town planning and access issues, as well as provincial
and federal policy. Civil society interventions can have
dramatic effects on healthy child development.
In theory, universal programs are available for everyone
to use (i.e. library storytimes, Family Resource Programs).
However, a universally available program is not the same
as a universally accessible one, since there can be barriers
for some groups of people that limit their access to these
programs. We consider the issue of barriers in more detail
below.
Targeted programs are interventions designed for a subset
of families and young children that are defined by some
characteristic such as: income, geographic location, ethnicity,
family risk (i.e. child protection issues), and biological risk
(i.e. identified health problems). The success of targeted
programs can also be mediated by barriers to access.
Clinical programs are designed for treatment of a child
and usually involve one-to-one treatment by a caregiver (i.e.
speech and language services, physical therapy, etc.).
Considering the Barriers to Access
W
ith the right mix of interventions, the entire
population of young children can have access to
improved conditions for healthy development. In the light
of this ideal, it is necessary to engage directly with the notion
of timely access to programming and the barriers that may
impede this access, especially those associated with the 19
socioeconomic indicators identified in chapter four that
predict vulnerability on EDI scales. In response, the Human
Early Learning Partnership, in conjunction with community
service providers, has compiled a list of barriers that we
categorize under two headings: (i) barriers that families
confront when trying to access services; and (ii) barriers
that agencies encounter when trying to provide services.
Barriers for families include:
1. Program or service not available. Potential
clients are unable to access services because
they simply do not exist within their community.
2. Cost. Potential clients are unable to access
services due to financial constraints.
3. Transportation. Lack of transportation to and
from services prevents potential clients from
accessing the program.
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
141

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part One: Thinking Strategically About ECD: An Introduction
4. Time program is offered. The times of the
day or week that the program or service is
offered present a barrier to access for potential
clients.
5. Time poverty. Parents may struggle to juggle
multiple roles, including paid work and
caregiving, and thus do not have sufficient time
to access resources. Time poverty is likely an
especially significant barrier among lone-parent
families.
Barriers for agencies include:
1. Agency mandate. The mandate of the agency
does not encompass supporting such a service.
2. Skill base. Agency personnel do not have the
appropriate skill base to adequately provide the
service.
3. Resources. The agency does not have sufficient
resources to adequately provide the service.
6. Language. The language in which the service
is offered prevents potential clients from
accessing the program/service.
7. Fragmentation. Families have children of
various ages and are unable to access the desired
programs for each child due to conflicting
schedules or locations of programs.
8. Lack of information. Potential clients do not
access services due to the lack of information
available about programs.
9. Conflicting expectations. Parents of children
who could benefit from services do not use
them because they disagree with agencies
providing the service about what the program
should look like and how it should be delivered.
10. Social distance. Parents of children who could
potentially access services are from different
class, social or cultural circles than those who
provide the service. Lack of trust,
embarrassment, etc. may result in unwillingness
to access available services.
11. Parental consciousness. Parents are unaware
of the benefits to their children of the available
programs and services. For example, many
parents may not be aware that it is important to
read to their children and therefore do not access
the available literacy programs.
Determining the Best Intervention Mix for Your Community
A
4. Absence of intersectoral group. Agencies may
be unable to innovate or offer a service without
the support of a broader coalition or intersectoral
group.
5. Planning cycle. Planning cycles are longer than
local cycles of mobility and economic security.
For example, many resource communities
measure economic security in months, not years.
6. Tax authority. Federal and provincial agencies
provide funding incentives to entice local
governments and other stakeholders to assume
responsibility for providing ECD services
without transferring sufficient taxation authority.
s communities consider strategies to overcome access
barriers to programs, Figure 5.1.3 provides a starting
point for discussions about how to define the best intervention
mix for the area. The figure is designed to be used as a
planning tool to assist communities in determining the mix
of interventions that might be useful for strategic ECD
planning. The tool should not be used as the definitive
answer to your community’s needs.
Building on the community typology proposed in chapter
3, communities are encouraged to use EDI average scores
and vulnerability rates to classify their neighbourhoods or
communities as either high challenge, low challenge, buffered,
or wide range. Once identified, the following grid can be
used to guide local discussions about community priorities
and the development of action plans.
142
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

% of Children
Figure 5.1.3: What Should the Policy Mix Look Like?
High Challenge
Buffered
Wide Range
Low Challenge
Civil
Society Universal Targeted Clinical
Normal Emphasis
Increased Emphasis
Special Emphasis
Figure 5.1.4 shows how EDI results can help at this level
of strategic decision making. The bell curve in the figure
represents the distribution of EDI scores in a given
neighbourhood or community. The curve may represent
any one of the five EDI scales or vulnerability on at least
one scale.
The vertical axis shows the percentage of children within
a community, while the horizontal axis displays the range
of EDI scores across the community. In this distribution,
one can see that the highest percentage of children fall in
the middle-range of EDI scores (at the peak). The dark
vertical line shows the vulnerability threshold. The
percentages of children who fall to the left of this line and
under the lower left of the developmental curve would be
considered vulnerable.
Figure 5.1.4: Influence of Policy Intervention on EDI Scores
HIGH
LOW
Civil Society,
Universal
Targeted,
Clinical
LOW
Vulnerability Threshold
Score on Scale of EDI
Indicates
Vulnerability
HIGH
The arrows on the figure indicate how different levels of
intervention can influence the developmental distribution
in different ways. For example:
Civil society interventions tend to influence the entire
distribution of the developmental curve, so that if these
programs are successful, the entire curve will shift to the
right. If these interventions really “bring a community
together” to create family-friendly environments across class
and ethnic divides, they should have a larger influence at
the vulnerable end of the distribution than at the other end.
In other words, the distribution will both move to the right,
and be compressed. As a result, the range, or inequality in
distribution, will be reduced.
Universal interventions have the capacity to influence a
large number of children and shift the entire distribution to
the right, if barriers of access can be addressed for children
who fall below the vulnerability threshold. If barriers are
not addressed, universal interventions will have a larger
effect at the non-vulnerable end of the distribution. In other
words, distribution will improve, but the range will expand,
not compress. Developmentally speaking, this would mean
that “the rich will get richer.” Thus, in order for these
interventions to have the most positive effect across the
entire EDI vulnerability continuum, access issues must be
addressed proactively, especially among the most vulnerable
children and families.
Targeted interventions, in principle, are meant to pick up
a group of children who are likely to be vulnerable, and thus
they can shift the left end of the distribution to the right. If
these programs are successful, a percentage of at-risk children
will become less vulnerable and cross the vulnerability
threshold. The development of the remainder of children
under the curve is generally not influenced. The success of
these kinds of programs rests in part in correctly identifying
vulnerable children so that interventions can have the greatest
effect.
Clinical interventions only affect a small percentage of
children, who are identified individually as vulnerable. They
are meant to shift the left side of the distribution to the right.
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
143

R
Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.2 ECD Mobilization
ECD Mobilization
A
s Figure 5.1.4 indicates, the character and quality
of civil society interventions, universal social
programs, and targeted social security and health interventions
have potential to influence early childhood development
dramatically. This section employs maps to provide a brief
scan of some of the key province-wide policies that currently
affect young children and their caregivers at all three levels.
Map 5.2.1 illustrates the geographic reach of two key
programs in BC that are building local coalitions around the
theme of early childhood development: Children First
Initiatives and Success by 6®. The former have been
established in conjunction with the BC Ministry of Children
and Family Development. Children First programs target
families in which children are at risk of poor social, emotional,
cognitive and/or physical outcomes, with the intention of
integrating and enriching BC’s community-based service
delivery system for early child development (ECD).
MCFD Regions
Boundaries
Ministry of Children and
Family Development
Interior
Fraser
Vancouver - Coastal
Vancouver Island
Northern
note: these are coterminous with
the province’s five geographic
health authorities
Success by Six
Regions (loosely defined)
South Peace
Success by 6 Regions
East Kootenay
West Kootenay
North Okanagan
Ctrl / South Okanagan
Kamloops - Cariboo
Eastern Fraser Valley
Lower Mainland
Powell River
Southern Vancouver Island
Cowichan Valley
Central Vancouver Island
Northern Vancouver Island
Northwest
Prince Rupert
Central North
South Peace
North Peace
Success By 6® is an initiative of the United Way that is
building ECD coalitions in a number of local BC communities
to bring together community leaders from the business,
labour, government and social services sectors. Coalitions
help identify local needs and decide upon interventions that
will help parents and communities create healthy, nurturing
environments for young children, so that by age six, children
are physically, socially and emotionally ready to succeed in
school. The United Way uses its fund raising prowess to
finance interventions and ensures that funds raised in local
communities will stay in those communities to support
identified early childhood development priorities.
Children First
Regions
Children First Initiatives
areal coverage as described by representatives
100 Mile House
Abbotsford (also UEY)
Boundary
Burnaby
Cache Creek/Ashcroft
Delta
Capital Region
Cowichan Valley
Chilliwack
East Kootenay
Fraser - Cascade
Golden
Kamloops/Merritt
Kelowna
Langley
Lillooet
Lytton
Mission
Nanaimo/Ladysmith
New Westminster
North Thompson
Parksville/Qualicum
Port Alberni
Prince George
Revelstoke
Richmond
Ridge Meadows
Sea to Sky
Shuswap
Smithers
South Okanagan/Similkameen
Surrey
Terrace
Tri-Cities
Upper Island
Vancouver
Vernon
West Kootenay
Williams Lake
144
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Map 5.2.1: ECD Coalition Building Groups in BC: Success by 6 and Children First
Nanaimo
Ctrl Island
Ladysmith
Masset
Queen
Charlotte
City
Prince
Rupert
Prince Rupert
Dease Lake
Northwest
Terrace
Kitimat
Vancouver Burnaby
Richmond
North
Vancouver
Delta
Port
Hardy
Tri-Cities
Surrey
Lower Mainland
Smithers
Bella
Coola
North
Island
Maple
Ridge
Langley
Burns
Lake
Campbell
River
Courtenay
Central
Island
Cowichan
Powell
River
Powell
River
Port
Alberni
Fort
Nelson
Vanderhoof
Sechelt
North Peace
Lower
Mainland
Sea to Sky
South
Island
Central
North
Prince
George
Fort
St. John
Chetwynd
Mackenzie
Quesnel
Dawson
Creek
South Peace
Williams
Lake
100 Mile
House
Kamloops-
Cariboo
Cache Kamloops
Creek
Lillooet
Mission
Chilliwack
Abbotsford
Merritt
Eastern Fraser
Valley
Valemount
Blue
River
Ctrl / S.
Okanagan
Salmon
Arm
Vernon
Kelowna
Revelstoke
North
Okanagan
Penticton
Princeton Boundary
Grand
Forks
Golden
Kaslo
West
Kootenay
Nelson
Castlegar
Trail
East
Kootenay
Kimberley
Fernie
Cranbrook
Creston
Data Source:
Base data provided by UBC Data Library. Program
coverage for Make Children First provided by e-mail
survey conducted January/February 2004 and refined.
Regions and logo for Success by 6 (SB6) provided by
SB6.
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Cowichan
Saltspring
Island
Duncan
South Island
Sooke
Victoria
145

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.3 Hospital Utilization
Hospital Utilization Table 5.3.1: Hospital Utilization Rates, 1998 - 2002
H
ospital use is a key component of the universal health
care system in the province. Utilization rates speak
to the safety and overall climate of local health areas for
young children.
The highest utilization rates occur in the most remote areas,
including Island North, Queen Charlotte, Upper Skeena,
and Creston (see Map 5.3.1). The reasons for this trend
are not obvious. While it may be the case that the children
in remote areas become sick more often or are more prone
to injury, an alternative explanation is that access to doctors
is much more restricted in remote local health areas than in
urban communities. On this view, children in the outlying
regions must be admitted to hospitals more regularly just to
see a doctor.
LHA# Local Health Area Name
49
53
92
83
5
85
50
94
67
65
55
29
11
52
56
54
80
51
87
68
63
88
25
84
19
57
27
48
31
10
26
15
4
14
28
76
34
75
17
30
70
32
9
66
33
81
72
162
23
2
59
165
1
61
77
20
60
62
71
166
163
64
164
22
161
7
78
69
24
16
18
35
42
202
201
40
6
47
37
41
12
46
43
45
44
38
21
3
13
Bella Coola Valley
Upper Skeena
Nisga'a
Central Coast
Creston
Island North
Queen Charlotte
Telegraph Creek
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Burns Lake
Lillooet
Trail
Prince Rupert
Nechako
Smithers
Kitimat
Snow Country
Stikine
Nanaimo
Saanich
Terrace
100 Mile House
Island West
Revelstoke
Prince George
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Howe Sound
Merritt
Arrow Lakes
North Thompson
Penticton
Windermere
Southern Okanagan
Quesnel
Agassiz - Harrison
Abbotsford
Mission
Princeton
South Cariboo
Alberni
Hope
Castlegar
Lake Cowichan
Chilliwack
Fort Nelson
Campbell River
Vancouver - Downtown Eastside
Central Okanagan
Cranbrook
Peace River South
Vancouver - Midtown
Fernie
Greater Victoria
Summerland
Salmon Arm
Peace River North
Sooke
Courtenay
Vancouver - South
Vancouver - North East
Gulf Islands
Vancouver - Westside
Vernon
Vancouver - City Centre
Nelson
Enderby
Qualicum
Kamloops
Keremeos
Golden
Langley
Maple Ridge
South Surrey/White Rock
Surrey
New Westminster
Kootenay Lake
Powell River
Delta
Burnaby
Grand Forks
Sunshine Coast
Coquitlam
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
North Vancouver
Richmond
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Kimberley
Kettle Valley
Utilization
Rate
263.1
229.9
228.1
213.3
211.5
199.3
198.6
197.4
185.6
175.8
173.9
168.5
168.2
165.2
164.6
156.3
153.1
145.5
139.7
137.5
132.5
132.4
130.6
129.7
129.7
129.4
128.6
128.0
128.0
126.9
125.5
125.4
124.5
123.3
122.6
120.5
119.3
118.4
116.2
116.1
116.1
115.8
115.6
113.3
113.2
111.9
111.9
111.8
111.6
110.4
109.6
108.2
107.5
105.2
105.1
105.0
103.9
101.7
101.0
99.9
99.0
98.2
96.6
95.2
93.3
92.5
92.0
92.0
91.4
90.5
90.5
89.8
89.6
88.7
88.6
86.4
84.9
82.2
82.2
79.6
77.8
77.7
77.7
77.1
76.5
72.8
72.7
72.6
68.6
British Columbia 103.5
146
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 5.3.1: Hospital Utilization by Children Under Five, 1998 - 2002
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Nanaimo
Island
North
Campbell
River
Ladysmith
Queen
Charlotte
Gulf
Islands
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Vancouver
Westside
Terrace
Kitimat
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Bowen Isl.
Vancouver
City
Centre
Stikine
Telegraph Ck
Upper
Skeena
Smithers
Bella Coola
Valley
Vancouver
Midtown
Burns
Lk
Vancouver
Downtown
Eastside
Vancouver
South
North
Vancouver
Vancouver
Northeast
Nechako
Prince George
Burnaby
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
100 Mile
House
Maple Ridge
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
North
Thompson
Mission
Hospital Admissions
Admissions per thousand
children under 5 years of age,
1998 - 2002
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
above 185.6 (8 LHAs)
139.8 - 185.6 (10 LHAs)
109.7 - 139.7 (32 LHAs)
86.5 - 109.6 (25 LHAs)
Below 86.5 (14 LHAs)
(89 Local Health Areas)
all values shown in table on previous page
Enderby
Revelstoke
Armstrong
Spallumcheen
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Arrow
Kimberley
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Castlegar
Nelson
Trail
Southern
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Lake
Cowichan
Cowichan
Saanich
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Langley
Abbotsford
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
South Surrey
White Rock
Data Source:
Age-Standardized Utilization Rates (ASUR) Version
9, BC Ministry of Health Services.
147

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.4 Licensed Child Care Spaces
Licensed Child Care Spaces
Table 5.4.1: Licensed Child Care Spaces, 2001
R
esearch has shown that quality child care contributes
to positive development for preschool-age children
irrespective of family income, but especially among children
from economically vulnerable households and families for
whom English is not the mother tongue (Peisner-Feinberg
et al. 1999; Jacobs et al. 1992; Broberg et al. 1997; Berrueta-
Clement et al. 1984).
Quality child care also facilitates parental labour force
participation in both single-parent and two-parent homes.
Paid work by mothers is now perhaps the most important
safeguard against childhood poverty in Canada. The National
Council of Welfare (2002, Table 8.3) reports that the
percentage of Canadian husband-wife households with
children under six that fall below the poverty line before
taxes would rise from 7% to 21% in the absence of maternal
earnings.
HR# Health Region Name
18 North Shore
20 Capital
5 Thompson
10 Central Vancouver Island
15 Northern Interior
11 Upper Island/Central Coast
16 Vancouver
19 Richmond
8 Simon Fraser
4 S. Okanagan - Similkameen
9 Coast - Garibaldi
1 East Kootenay
12 Cariboo
2 West Kootenay-Boundary
17 Burnaby
3 North Okanagan
6 Fraser Valley
7 South Fraser Valley
13 Northwest
14 Peace - Liard
Population
Under
13 yrs
25,140
43,560
20,530
35,872
23,634
19,094
67,129
23,033
54,984
32,686
11,893
12,357
12,758
11,379
26,532
17,174
45,446
105,113
17,288
13,622
Licensed
Spaces
per 1000
181
177
142
141
135
132
128
127
126
116
116
113
108
107
103
84
82
79
77
69
British Columbia 619,224 116
%
Change
1997-2001
13 %
11 %
46 %
16 %
41 %
48 %
- 5 %
9 %
24 %
15 %
47 %
12 %
8 %
19 %
4 %
33 %
21 %
13 %
8 %
13 %
Access to quality child care is currently limited in BC. In
the most northeasterly region of Peace-Liard, there are
licensed spaces for just 7% of children under 13 (see Map
5.4.1). Northwest, South Fraser Valley (Surrey), Fraser
Valley, and North Okanagan regions do only slightly better
by providing licensed spaces for 8% of children.
At the other end of the BC spectrum, the North Shore of
Vancouver and the Capital district on Vancouver Island have
enough licensed spaces for 18% of children age zero to 12.
While license standards set a minimum baseline for safety,
adherence to the standards alone does not guarantee quality
care.
This limited availability of licensed child care in BC ranks
the province near the very bottom in international terms.
International figures indicate that licensed child care is a
universal program in many countries (Bradshaw and Finch
2002; Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development 2001). Close to 100% of all three-year-old
children in Belgium and Sweden are enrolled in child care;
as are over 60% of all three-year-olds in Norway and
Denmark. Similarly, 100% of four-year-olds in Sweden,
the Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium are in child care, as are
90% of four-year-olds in Denmark and the UK, and between
60 and 89% of four-year-olds in Norway, Portugal and the
Czech Republic.
Québec is the one province in Canada that approximates
these international norms. Since 1997, the government of
Québec has been implementing a universal system of child
care for all children under age 13. The daily cost of care in
that province is $7, with additional fee subsidies for lowincome
families.
As federal funding for early childhood development and
early learning and care increased between 2001 and 2003,
public funding for child care in BC decreased by about 25%
in this period (Kershaw 2004). While the provincial
government has announced a series of reinvestments in child
care since then, it is difficult to track accurately what share
of the initial funding reductions have been returned to actual
provincial child care expenditures.
148
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 5.4.1: Licensed Child Care Spaces, 2001
represents 100 children
below thirteen years of age
(i.e. the population of children
under 13 in Richmond is
approximately 23,000)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Upper Island/
Central Coast
Northwest
Coast
Garibaldi
North Shore
Burnaby
Peace -
Liard
Northern
Interior
Cariboo
Simon
Fraser
Thompson
Child Care
Number of licensed child care
spaces, per 1000 children
under 13 years of age
above 142
136 - 142
117 - 135
103 - 116
below 103
(20 Health Regions)
(2 Regions)
(2 Regions)
(5 Regions)
(6 Regions)
(5 Regions)
all values shown in table on previous page
Number of spaces per thousand
increased by more than 30%
Number of spaces per thousand
increased
Number of spaces per thousand
decreased
North
Okanagan
South
Okanagan
Similkameen
East
Kootenay
West
Kootenay-
Boundary
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Central
Vancouver
Island
Vancouver
Fraser Valley
Richmond
South Fraser
Valley
Capital
Data Source:
Hunter, T. & Forer, B. 2002. Final Report: 2001
Provincial Child Care Survey. Victoria, British
Columbia: University of Victoria, Unit for Child Care
Research.
149

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.5 Licensed Child Care Facility Closure
Licensed Child Care Facility Closure Table 5.5.1: Licensed Child Care Facility Closure, 1997 - 2001
R
esearch repeatedly shows that stability is an important
component of quality child care (Helburn 1995;
Howes and Hamilton 1993; Howes et al. 1992; Phillips et
al. 2000; Hayes et al. 1990). Children in stable arrangements
are more likely to receive sensitive and appropriate responses
from their caregivers, enjoy more secure attachments,
participate in higher developmental levels of play, foster
stronger language skills and attain better primary school
achievement.
A cursory examination of provincial licensing data indicates
that there were 4,154 licensed child care providers in 1997
compared to 4,363 in 2001. This 5% increase in facilities
produced a 10% gain in the number of licensed spaces in
the province (from 65,726 to 72,608).
Hidden behind the net figures, however, is a dramatic level
of facility instability and closure (Kershaw et al. forthcoming).
A more detailed analysis reveals that 34% of the 1,867
centres and 48% of the 2,287 family child care facilities that
operated in 1997 were closed by 2001 (see Table 5.5.1).
Facility closure is one source of instability in the child care
sector that has particularly disruptive consequences for
children and their families. When a centre closes, it not
only severs the specific relationship between child and
caregiver-teacher, it withdraws the child from her entire care
environment. This environment consists of a nexus of
relationships that may include the centre’s director, other
staff, parents, and other children — all of which are integrated
within familiar physical surroundings. Thus, rather than
confront the child with just one change in relationship, as
is the case with staff turnover within a centre that continues
to operate, facility closure requires the children to grapple
with a series of simultaneous disruptions in their web of
relations and care context. The broader ripple effects of such
disruption create stress and disturbance for parental work
and study schedules, as well as for other aspects of family
life.
HR#
2
12
13
1
10
5
3
6
14
20
4
15
19
11
7
8
9
18
16
17
Health Region Name
W. Kootenay-Boundary
Cariboo
Northwest
East Kootenay
Ctrl Vancouver Island
Thompson
North Okanagan
Fraser Valley
Peace-Liard
Capital
S. Okan. Similkameen
Northern Interior
Richmond
Upper Isl./Ctrl Coast
South Fraser Valley
Simon Fraser
Coast Garibaldi
North Shore
Vancouver
Burnaby
Existing
Facilities
1997
95
135
98
98
377
152
116
233
43
494
267
206
148
138
487
385
77
179
302
124
Percent
closed by
2001
57.9
57.0
52.0
49.0
48.8
48.7
47.4
45.1
44.2
44.1
43.8
42.2
39.9
39.9
39.6
37.9
37.7
36.9
24.2
21.8
Family Care
Facilities
1997
54
89
55
57
256
95
75
124
17
286
163
143
63
72
279
248
33
74
71
33
Percent
closed by
2001
57.4
59.6
50.9
49.1
50.0
54.7
49.3
51.6
52.9
53.5
44.8
44.8
39.7
55.6
44.1
42.3
36.4
52.7
35.2
36.4
Centre Care
Facilities
1997
41
46
43
41
121
57
41
109
26
208
104
63
85
66
208
137
44
105
231
91
Percent
closed by
2001
58.5
52.2
53.5
48.8
46.3
38.6
43.9
37.6
38.5
31.3
42.3
36.5
40.0
22.7
33.7
29.9
38.6
25.7
20.8
16.5
British Columbia 4154 41.8 2287 48.1 1867 34.1
and West Kootenay-Boundary, however, the rate is more
than double this level.
The bar graphs in each region on Map. 5.5.1 indicate that
closure rates are consistently higher in the family child care
sector than they are among child care centres. In contrast
to typically larger centres, family child care providers run
small-scale programs from their homes that by law serve a
maximum of seven children at a time.
Child care instability is a problem across the province.
Burnaby and Vancouver can be considered the ‘best of the
worst,’ with closure rates of 30%. In Peace-Liard, Cariboo
150
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 5.5.1: Licensed Child Care Facility Closure, 1997 - 2001
represents 100 children
below thirteen years of age
(i.e. the population of children
under 13 in Richmond is
approximately 23,000)
(values rounded when
necessary)
100
50
100
50
100
50
FC
FC
Central
Vancouver
Island
FC
Upper Island/
Central Coast
Coast
Garibaldi
Capital
Northwest
100
50
100
50
100
50
Vancouver
FC
FC
FC
100
50
FC
100
50
North Shore
Richmond
FC
Burnaby
100
50
FC
Peace -
Liard
Northern
Interior
100
50
100
50
FC
100
50
100
50
FC
FC
100
50
FC
Cariboo
Simon
Fraser
FC
100
50
South Fraser
Valley
Thompson
FC
Child Care
Percentage of facilities existing
in 1997 that were closed
by 2001
100
50
FC
above 59.3 % (3 Regions)
49.6 - 59.3 % (6 Regions)
42.9 - 49.5 % (6 Regions)
41.0 - 42.8 % (3 Regions)
below 41.0 % (2 Regions)
all values shown in table on previous page
100
50
North
Okanagan
FC
Fraser
Valley
100
50
Percent of
Facilities Open
in 1997 Closed
by 2001
FC
(20 Health Regions)
East
Kootenay
100
50
100
50
FC
South
Okanagan
Similkameen
100
50
FC
West
Kootenay-
Boundary
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
FC
Licensed
Family
Child Care
Child Care
Centres
Data Source:
Hunter, T. & Forer, B. 2002. Final Report: 2001
Provincial Child Care Survey. Victoria, British
Columbia: University of Victoria, Unit for Child Care
Research.
151

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.6 Income Assistance
Income Assistance
I
ncome assistance is a targeted social program that aims
to deliver material resources to families that struggle
economically. Among Canadian provinces and territories
that have substantially reformed income support programs
over the last decade, BC is distinct because it has explicitly
redefined welfare as a temporary and conditional form of
support. Recent policy changes include increased emphasis
on employment obligations for benefit recipients (coupled
with decreased transition to work supports); reductions to
benefit rates for single-parents; the imposition of a two-year
time limit on receipt of benefits; and the requirement to
search for paid work when a benefit recipient’s youngest
child turns age three (down from age seven).
In 2004, a couple with a child under three who relies on
income assistance will receive $401 a month from the
provincial government, plus a shelter allowance of $555.
A single parent with a child of the same age will receive
$326 a month, plus the shelter support of $520.
After tax monthly low-income cut-offs in Canada range
from $1,389 in the most sparsely populated rural areas, to
$2,103 in large urban settings with populations of half a
million people or more.
The fact that the value of income assistance benefits falls
below low-income cut-offs in BC contributes to Canada’s
poor international ranking in terms of childhood poverty
levels. Canada stands 19th out of 26 among affluent
democracies in a recent United Nations comparison of
poverty rates across the globe. The national childhood
poverty rate of 14.9% is more than six times higher than the
number one ranked country, Denmark. Denmark has
succeeded at reducing childhood poverty rates below 2.5%
(UNICEF 2005).
There is a startling range in the rate of childhood reliance
on income assistance in BC. Wealthy Vancouver
neighbourhoods report just 2% of children residing in homes
that receive welfare. But the rate rises to a high of 45% in
Hope. Hope is joined by Merritt, Prince Rupert and Princeton
as cities in which at least one-third of children rely on
Table 5.6.1: Income Assistance Rates, 1999 - 2003
LHA#
32
31
52
17
162
53
88
68
78
70
15
66
10
2
65
72
71
6
57
25
28
47
22
29
24
20
55
14
16
30
59
12
27
46
69
13
9
26
33
75
80
50
64
3
85
19
40
11
67
61
23
163
56
165
1
51
18
49
77
54
21
41
5
81
36
166
60
34
62
84
87/94
42
161
4
35
43
76
63
48
37
38
44
45
164
83
92
Local Health Area Name
Hope
Merritt
Prince Rupert
Princeton
Vancouver - Downtown Eastside
Upper Skeena
Terrace
Nanaimo
Enderby
Alberni
Penticton
Lake Cowichan
Arrow Lakes
Cranbrook
Cowichan
Campbell River
Courtenay
Kootenay Lake
Prince George
100 Mile House
Quesnel
Powell River
Vernon
Lillooet
Kamloops
Salmon Arm
Burns Lake
Southern Okanagan
Keremeos
South Cariboo
Peace River South
Grand Forks
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Sunshine Coast
Qualicum
Kettle Valley
Castlegar
North Thompson
Chilliwack
Mission
Kitimat
Queen Charlotte
Gulf Islands
Kimberley
Island North
Revelstoke
New Westminster
Trail
Ladysmith
Greater Victoria
Central Okanagan
Vancouver - North East
Nechako
Vancouver - Midtown
Fernie
Snow Country
Golden
Bella Coola Valley
Summerland
Smithers
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Burnaby
Creston
Fort Nelson
Surrey
Vancouver - South Vancouver
Peace River North
Abbotsford
Sooke
Island West
Stikine/Telegraph Creek
Maple Ridge
Vancouver - City Centre
Windermere
Langley
Coquitlam
Agassiz - Harrison
Saanich
Howe Sound
Delta
Richmond
North Vancouver
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
Vancouver - Westside
Central Coast
Nisga'a
% of Income
Assisted Families
with Children

Map 5.6.1: Children Under Six in Income Assisted Families, 1999 - 2003
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine/Telegraph
Creek has a children
under 5 population of
approximately 200)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Lake
Cowichan
Nanaimo
Campbell
River
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Island
North
Queen
Charlotte
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Vancouver
Westside
Terrace
Kitimat
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Bowen Isl.
Vancouver
City
Centre
Upper
Skeena
Bella Coola
Valley
Vancouver
Midtown
Stikine
Telegraph Ck
Vancouver
Downtown
Eastside
Richmond
Smithers
Burns
Lk
Vancouver
South
North
Vancouver
Vancouver
Northeast
Nechako
Burnaby
Delta
Prince George
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
Surrey
100 Mile
House
Maple Ridge
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
Langley
North
Thompson
Mission
Income Assistance
Percent of children under six
years of age in income assisted
families, 1999 - 2003
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
Abbotsford
above 27.9 % (10 LHAs)
21.3 - 27.9 % (19 LHAs)
15.5 - 21.2 % (28 LHAs)
10.0 - 15.4 % (17 LHAs)
below 10.0 % (11 LHAs)
(89 Local Health Areas)
all values shown in table on previous page
Enderby
Revelstoke
Armstrong
Spallumcheen
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Arrow
Kimberley
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Castlegar
Nelson
Trail
Southern
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
Data Source:
British Columbia Ministry of Human Resources, Planning, Performance
and Data Services Branch
Income assistance numbers were generated by determining the total number
of children in income assistance families in a given year, regardless of the
duration of their stay. As it counts all children who appeared on income
assistance in a given year, the numbers are larger than they would be if one
were to use a monthly count of children on income assistance. The children
aged 0-6 population has been adjusted to remove children living on reserve.
Reserve population was estimated by applying 1996 Census results.
provincial income assistance. Childhood reliance on welfare
in these communities surpasses even the rate in Vancouver’s
Downtown Eastside.
Readers interested in this policy domain are advised to
examine Income Assistance data in the light of the SES
maps of physical vulnerability (Map 4.2.2) and vulnerability
on any EDI scale (Map 4.7.2) in chapter 4, since low-income
status is a significant predictor of developmental delay in
both instances. This comparison shows that the five local
health areas with the highest child welfare rates are all parts
of school districts that report high (red) rates of low-income
status. Of these districts, all but one (Fraser-Cascade, where
Hope is located) confront high (red) levels of physical
vulnerability; and all report high (red) rates of vulnerability
on one or more EDI scale.
153

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.7 Children Under Seven in the Care of the State
Children Under Seven in the Care of the State
M
any young children are unable to be cared for by
their biological parent(s). There are many reasons
for this outcome, including parents’ inability to provide
appropriate care because of physical or mental illness; neglect
that is often related to issues of poverty or lone parenthood
(Weller and Wharf 2002); or because of physical, emotional
or sexual abuse, some of which may be intergenerational in
nature (Foster and Wright 2002). In response, the provincial
government has established a targeted social program that
provides care on a full-time basis for children outside of
their biological parents’ residences.
If any member of society, lay or professional, feels that a
child is not receiving the appropriate care that is required
for healthy development, there is an obligation, enshrined
in legislation, to inform staff in the Ministry of Children
and Family Development. If an investigation reveals a need
to apprehend a child, then the child is taken into care and
put into an approved foster home with surrogate parents. In
some instances, parent(s) may voluntarily request that a
child be placed in care, either on a temporary or permanent
basis. Some children taken into care may have several foster
placements before the age of six, although if the child is
placed in permanent care, attempts are made to facilitate
adoption.
Whatever the reason for a young child being placed in care,
it is disruptive to her or his development and may affect
readiness to learn as s/he enters school. In many instances,
children in care are much more likely to have some type of
special need or developmental delay (Kendall 2001; Trocme
et al. 2001). Further research has shown that being in the
care of the state often associates with poor outcomes later
in life, including difficulties in personal relationships,
homelessness, being on welfare and often self-medication
through alcohol or drugs.
Over the last few years, approximately 1% of the total child
population in BC has been in care at any point in time. This
is a lower percentage than the Prairie provinces and the
Territories, but higher than provinces further east. Much of
the difference in the rate of children in care is associated
Table 5.7.1: Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003
LHA#
84
87
31
85
52
70
55
94
92
30
32
53
17
75
49
88
65
27
59
67
57
15
72
28
22
61
29
2
78
33
68
76
5
24
161
19
56
18
20
23
14
34
71
50
4
35
77
13
47
54
81
69
7
62
63
42
66
60
162
9
11
80
43
201
25
40
48
37
83
41
21
12
10
163
46
202
166
1
165
3
38
6
45
44
164
64
51
26
16
Local Health Area Name
Island West
Stikine
Merritt
Island North
Prince Rupert
Alberni
Burns Lake
Telegraph Creek
Nisga'a
South Cariboo
Hope
Upper Skeena
Princeton
Mission
Bella Coola Valley
Terrace
Cowichan
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Peace River South
Ladysmith
Prince George
Penticton
Campbell River
Quesnel
Vernon
Greater Victoria
Lillooet
Cranbrook
Enderby
Chilliwack
Nanaimo
Agassiz - Harrison
Creston
Kamloops
Vancouver - City Centre
Revelstoke
Nechako
Golden
Salmon Arm
Central Okanagan
Southern Okanagan
Abbotsford
Courtenay
Queen Charlotte
Windermere
Langley
Summerland
Kettle Valley
Powell River
Smithers
Fort Nelson
Qualicum
Nelson
Sooke
Saanich
Maple Ridge
Lake Cowichan
Peace River North
Vancouver - Downtown Eastside
Castlegar
Trail
Kitimat
Coquitlam
Surrey
100 Mile House
New Westminster
Howe Sound
Delta
Central Coast
Burnaby
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Grand Forks
Arrow Lakes
Vancouver - North East
Sunshine Coast
South Surrey/White Rock
Vancouver - South
Fernie
Vancouver - Midtown
Kimberley
Richmond
Kootenay Lake
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
North Vancouver
Vancouver - Westside
Gulf Islands
Snow Country
North Thompson
Keremeos
# Children in
Care per 1000
59.6
46.3
43.9
39.4
34.8
34.7
34.2
34.1
34.0
32.5
25.6
24.2
24.2
23.2
21.6
21.2
20.8
19.9
19.9
19.8
18.9
18.5
16.4
15.3
15.0
14.8
14.7
14.5
14.4
14.4
14.3
14.1
14.0
13.5
13.2
12.9
12.9
12.7
12.1
11.8
11.3
10.9
10.7
10.5
10.1
10.1
10.0
9.7
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.6
8.5
8.1
8.0
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.1
6.1
5.9
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.8
4.3
4.2
3.9
3.7
2.9
2.8
1.4
0
0
0
0
British Columbia 10.6
154
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 5.7.1: Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine has a child
population of
approximately 100)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Island
West
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Lake
Cowichan
Nanaimo
Campbell
River
Ladysmith
Cowichan
Island
North
Queen
Charlotte
Gulf
Islands
Saanich
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Vancouver
Westside
Terrace
Kitimat
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Bowen Isl.
Vancouver
City
Centre
Stikine
Telegraph Ck
Upper
Skeena
Smithers
Bella Coola
Valley
Vancouver
Midtown
Burns
Lk
Vancouver
Downtown
Eastside
Vancouver
South
Richmond
North
Vancouver
Vancouver
Northeast
Nechako
Burnaby
Delta
Prince George
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
Surrey
100 Mile
House
Maple Ridge
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
Langley
North
Thompson
Mission
Children in Care
Children aged 0 to 6 in Care
(per thousand), 2003
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
Abbotsford
above 25.6
16.5 - 25.6
11.0 - 16.4
5.1 - 10.9
Below 5.1
(89 Local Health Areas)
(10 LHAs)
(12 LHAs)
(19 LHAs)
(36 LHAs)
(12 LHAs)
all values shown in table on previous page
Enderby
Revelstoke
Armstrong
Spallumcheen
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Arrow
Kimberley
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Castlegar
Nelson
Trail
Southern
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
South Surrey
White Rock
Data Source:
Ministry of Children and Family Development,
Management and Resource System (MARS) Data
Warehouse.
with Aboriginal children. We focus on Aboriginal children
in care on Map 5.8.1.
Variation in the rates of young children in care across local
health areas is substantial, and greater than variation in the
rate of young children living in income assisted families.
The five regions that report the highest rates of young
children in care that are also parts of school districts for
which we have EDI data are Stikine, Merritt (Nicola-
Similkameen), Island North, Prince Rupert and Alberni (see
Map and Table 5.7.1).
When we examine these districts on the provincial SES-
EDI maps presented in chapter 4, we find that all five report
relatively high (red) levels of language and cognitive
vulnerability, as do all but Alberni in respect of the physical,
emotional, and communication/general knowledge scales.
All five regions also have high proportions of Aboriginal
residents, high rates of lone parenthood and high
unemployment rates among families with children under
six. Four of the five report low percentages of men in
management positions.
At the other extreme we find that there are almost no young
children in care in the Gulf Islands, Snow Country, North
Thompson, and Keremeos. The relatively affluent areas of
the Lower Mainland also enjoy low rates, such as Vancouver
Westside, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, and Richmond.
155

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.8 Aboriginal Children in the Care of the State
Aboriginal Children in the Care of the State
I
n BC, Aboriginal children are eight times more likely
to be in state care than non-Aboriginal children, and
close to half of the provincial care case load consists of
Aboriginals. Much of this disparity is related to poverty and
the intergenerational impact of the residential school system
on Aboriginal communities (Chrisjohn et al. 1997).
The local health areas that report the highest rates of
Aboriginal children in care are all parts of school districts
that report relatively high (red) rates of vulnerability among
Aboriginal children on one or more EDI scale (see Map
5.8.1 and Map 4.7.6.). These include Island North,
Vancouver, Mission, Burnaby, Burns Lake (in the Bulkley
Valley) and Merritt (Nicola-Similkameen).
While the frequency with which Aboriginal children are in
state custody is much higher than for the general population,
there are a number of local health areas in the province
which report that no Aboriginal children are in provincial
custody. This group includes Kootenay Lake, Central Coast,
Lake Cowichan, the Gulf Islands, Snow Country, North
Thompson, and Revelstoke. The wide range in state custody
rates for Aboriginal children depending on the district in
which they live once again underscores the need to identify
why some communities are better contexts for early
development among Aboriginal children than others.
Table 5.8.1: Aboriginal Children Under Seven in State Care
LHA#
84
39
85
75
55
41
31
35
38
5
70
61
7
37
67
30
88
59
18
76
28
33
43
57
54
36
72
27
52
65
23
62
87/94
22
1
68
34
4
49
78
24
44
92
42
53
56
71
15
47
29
46
20
32
2
40
80
48
81
63
3
60
9
14
50
11
69
21
77
12
25
45
6
10
13
16
17
19
26
51
64
66
83
Local Health Area Name
Island West
Vancouver
Island North
Mission
Burns Lake
Burnaby
Merritt
Langley
Richmond
Creston
Alberni
Greater Victoria
Nelson
Delta
Ladysmith
South Cariboo
Terrace
Peace River South
Golden
Agassiz - Harrison
Quesnel
Chilliwack
Coquitlam
Prince George
Smithers
Surrey
Campbell River
Cariboo - Chilcotin
Prince Rupert
Cowichan
Central Okanagan
Sooke
Stikine
Vernon
Fernie
Nanaimo
Abbotsford
Windermere
Bella Coola Valley
Enderby
Kamloops
North Vancouver
Nisga'a
Maple Ridge
Upper Skeena
Nechako
Courtenay
Penticton
Powell River
Lillooet
Sunshine Coast
Salmon Arm
Hope
Cranbrook
New Westminster
Kitimat
Howe Sound
Fort Nelson
Saanich
Kimberley
Peace River North
Castlegar
Southern Okanagan
Queen Charlotte
Trail
Qualicum
Armstrong - Spallumcheen
Summerland
Grand Forks
100 Mile House
West Vancouver - Bowen Island
Kootenay Lake
Arrow Lakes
Kettle Valley
Keremeos
Princeton
Revelstoke
North Thompson
Snow Country
Gulf Islands
Lake Cowichan
Central Coast
# Children in
Care per 1000
173
111
108
97
96
93
91
83
82
79
75
74
72
70
70
69
69
67
63
60
59
58
58
58
57
54
51
50
49
49
47
46
45
43
42
42
40
39
39
39
37
36
36
35
34
34
34
32
31
30
30
29
29
28
28
25
24
23
22
21
21
20
17
17
16
16
15
14
11
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
British Columbia 53
156
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Map 5.8.1: Aboriginal Children Under Seven in State Care, 2003
represents 100 children
below five years of age
(i.e. Stikine/Telegraph
Creek has a child
population of
approximately 200)
(values rounded when
necessary)
Queen
Charlotte
Island
West
Qualicum
Courtenay
Alberni
Nanaimo
Island
North
Campbell
River
Ladysmith
Gulf
Islands
Snow Country
Central
Coast
Powell
River
Sunshine
Coast
Nisga’a
Prince
Rupert
Terrace
Kitimat
Howe
Sound
West
Vancouver
Bowen Isl.
Stikine
Telegraph Creek
Upper
Skeena
Bella Coola
Valley
Vancouver
Smithers
Burns
Lk
North
Vancouver
Nechako
Prince George
Burnaby
Quesnel
Agassiz-
Harrison
Cariboo-
Chilcotin
New
Westminster
Fort
Nelson
Peace River
North
Peace River
South
Lillooet
Coquitlam
100 Mile
House
Maple Ridge
Kamloops
South
Cariboo
North
Thompson
Mission
Salmon
Arm
Merritt
Aboriginal Children in Care
Aboriginal Children aged 0 to 6
in Care (per thousand), 2003
Armstrong
Spallumcheen
Vernon
Summerland
Hope
Chilliwack
above 83
52 - 83
32 - 51
12 - 31
Below 12
(89 Local Health Areas)
(7 LHAs)
(19 LHAs)
(23 LHAs)
(20 LHAs)
(14 LHAs)
all values shown in table on previous page
note some LHAs reported as aggregates
Enderby
Revelstoke
Central
Okanagan
Golden
Penticton
Windermere
Arrow
Kimberley
Lakes
Kootenay
Lake
Castlegar
Nelson
Trail
Southern
Okanagan
Keremeos
Princeton
Grand Forks
Kettle Valley
Cranbrook
Fernie
Creston
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Lake
Cowichan
Cowichan
Saanich
Richmond
Delta
Surrey
Langley
Abbotsford
Sooke
Greater
Victoria
Data Source:
Ministry of Children and Family Development,
Management and Resource System (MARS) Data
Warehouse, Decision Support and Economic Analysis
Branch.
157

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
5.9 BC’s Child Benefit Package in International Context
BC’s Child Benefit Package
T
he final two figures in the Atlas explore the child
benefit package in BC. The package concept treats
child and family policy in the province holistically to estimate
the monthly value of a broad range of public policies that
help (some) parents with the costs of raising children. The
package includes money and in-kind support delivered
through the following policy mechanisms:
Canada Child Tax Benefit, National Child
Benefit Supplement, GST Credit;
Child Care Expense Deduction, Spousal Credit,
Equivalent to Spouse Tax Credit;
BC Family Bonus, BC Earned Income Benefit;
Provincial Child Care Subsidy;
Provincial Child Care Operating Funding
(reflected in average child care fees);
Subsidized Medical Care, Dental Care,
Pharmacare; and
Income assistance.
Note: families in BC have no non-income
related cash benefits; (almost) no rent/housing
benefits; and no guaranteed child support. In
other countries these policies may be integral
components of local child benefit packages.
The value of the child benefit package in BC varies by
family size, income level and over time. Figure 5.9.1
estimates its value for:
six model families that vary in terms of having
one and two adults; the age of their children;
and whether the families use regulated nonfamilial
child care or not.
six annual earnings levels: income assistance;
minimum wage ($15,808); half average BC
earnings ($21,800); average earnings ($43,600);
average plus half average earnings; and average
plus average earnings.
two periods in time: July 2001 and January
2004.
When calculating the child benefit package, we consider a
family’s monthly earnings; income tax; Registered Retirement
Savings Plan (RRSP) contributions and related tax savings;
Employment Insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP)
contributions; housing costs; health, dental and drug costs;
child care costs; and all of the money or in-kind family
benefits delivered by the policy mechanisms listed above.
For each model family with children, the value of the child
benefit package is equal to the difference between its
disposable income and the disposable income available to
a childless couple with the same earnings.
The value of the monthly benefit (or penalty) that families
with young children enjoy differs significantly depending
on family structure and income level. Figure 5.9.1 shows
that the package’s value in 2004 is greatest for a couple with
a child under three who must survive on income assistance;
this family has $379 a month more in disposable income
than a childless couple on income assistance. In contrast,
the package is least valuable for a two-parent family that
relies on regulated child care to allow one parent to earn
average earnings and the other to earn either half average
or average earnings. For this sort of family, the package is
negative because it has $509 less a month in disposable
income compared to a childless family with the same
earnings.
Families that depend upon regulated care in British Columbia
incur a monthly financial penalty at relatively low incomes
when compared to childless couples. The benefit package
turns negative for families that rely on regulated arrangements
for a child under three once their income level rises beyond
minimum wage to equal half average earnings, or $21,800
(see the red columns in Figure 5.9.1). For families that have
a child in the public school system and use regulated care
only before and after school, the benefit package becomes
158
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Figure 5.9.1: Change in BC Child Benefit Package Values for 1 Child, 2001 - 2004
$400
$200
-$200
$5.40
-$332.44
$289.35
Families on
Income Assistance
$24.74
$270.01
-$62.58
$3.84
$10.76
$378.57
$18.96
$70.15
$30.10
$359.23
$0.37
$50.82
$0.43
$169.13
Families with
Minimum Wage
Earnings
$0.43
$264.63
$18.28
$299.83
$17.36
$280.49
-$174.30
$3.44
-$30.04
$121.10
$147.03
$294.28
$274.94
Lone Parent,
with Child

Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
Part Two: Maps of Public Policies that Contribute to BC’s Ecology of Child Development
negative at average earnings because part-day out-of-school
care is less costly than full-day care for a toddler (see the
yellow columns).
Figure 5.9.1 also shows that public policies in BC intersect
in a variety of ways to give two-parent families reason to
prefer one parent (most often the mother) to remain home
in order to provide child care personally rather than maintain
ties with the labour market by relying on regulated child
care. The couple with a three-year-old in which one parent
brings in average earnings on a monthly basis enjoys a child
benefit of about $70 a month (see the orange column). If
the parent at home opts for full-time paid employment at
half average earnings, the child benefit package drops by
roughly $660 a month to become a significant penalty (see
the green column). This drop means that the second parent
effectively works for $4.93 an hour; and from this wage
s/he must cover employment-related expenses like clothing
and transportation that are not considered in our estimates,
while also compensating for the domestic production that
s/he forgoes when shifting from care and unpaid work at
home to employment. Citizens and politicians alike would
do well to consider these figures when sifting through
contemporary debates about the extent to which public
policy in the province privileges or penalizes families in
which one person sacrifices earnings in order to perform
child care personally.
more generally the modest change in the child benefit
package’s value in BC during the three-year period. Consider,
for instance, a lone parent on income assistance who has a
child under three. Between 2001 and 2004, this family
model benefited from a $43 monthly increase from the
federal Canada Child Tax Benefit and National Child Benefit
Supplement. But this gain was cancelled by a $51 per month
cut to provincial income assistance enacted by the provincial
government.
Figure 5.9.2 puts the average Canadian child benefit package
that British Columbians receive in international context. It
shows that provincial and national policies collectively rank
very poorly in international terms irrespective of whether
Figure 5.9.2: Average Monthly Value of BC Child Benefit
Package in International Context
Canadian Dollars
Purchasing Power
Parities
United Kingdom, $554
$600
$500
Percent of Average
Earnings
0% 10%
8.63%
The value of the child benefit package in the province did
not change much between 2001 and 2004. Most families
witnessed the package rise or fall by about $20 a month.
One model family stands out, however, for suffering a
considerable decrease: a lone parent with a child under
three who works for half average earnings saw the benefit
drop from just under $90 a month to a penalty of slightly
more than $30. This $121 monthly decline occurred despite
the fact that s/he enjoyed a $13 increase in monthly federal
support delivered through the Canada Child Tax Benefit and
National Child Benefit Supplement; and a $7 monthly savings
in health and dental expenses as a result of provincial changes
to Medical Service Premiums (MSP) and pharmacare.
However, provincial changes to child care policy eliminated
these modest gains by reducing the child care subsidy on
which the model family can draw by $139 a month.
Norway, $339
Germany, $287
Sweden, $273
Finland, $265
Netherlands, $204
Iceland, $200
British Columbia
(Canada), $165
$400
$300
$200
9.84%
7.59%
8.66%
8.22%
4.45%
5.56%
4.43%
A pattern of federal and provincial governments implementing
policies that work at cross-purposes with one another explains
160
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

we evaluate other countries’ packages according to their
value in Canadian currency (and account for what economists
call purchasing power parities), or, whether we rank the
packages according to their value relative to each country’s
average earnings. The average BC package equals just $165
a month, nearly $400 less than the average benefit provided
to families in the UK. Given the linguistic, political and
cultural heritage that Canada shares with the UK, this
disparity in child benefit packages merits considerable
attention.
CHAPTER FIVE - Implications for Community Action and Public Policy
161

Evidence-Based ECD Information: A Powerful Planning Tool
Evidence-Based ECD Information:
A Powerful Planning Tool
Meeting the Needs of Families with Children in BC
T
he British Columbia Atlas of Child Development
presents readers with an extensive range of information
about child development patterns in local neighbourhoods,
school districts and health regions, as well as across the
entire province. The Human Early Learning Partnership
intends this information to play a role in community, regional
and provincial development by empowering residents and
policy makers with sufficient evidence-based information
to make solid program and policy decisions that cater to the
needs of children occupying spots along the entire EDI
vulnerability continuum, as well as children living in a wide
range of social and economic conditions.
and families in our society’s broader decisions about taxation,
economic growth, environmental protection and distributive
justice across social groups and generations.
Information overload is a risk, however. Vast quantities of
information to sift through without support in interpreting
data can be overwhelming. In response, HELP has held
regional planning meetings at which community stakeholders
from across the region have been invited to engage in
dialogue about their local data and ask pertinent questions
about interpretation. Similar meetings will be held in the
future, so stay tuned! In addition, HELP employs a
community liaison coordinator who is available to field
questions about Atlas findings. Contact information is
available at the HELP website: www.earlylearning.ubc.ca.
Even with assistance interpreting data, information overload
is a risk if community planners lack the resources needed
to respond to findings. Research is critical for informing
program and policy plans. But at the end of the day, optimal
early development depends in large part on the distribution
of resources that we allocate to support families in keeping
with the social care thesis that it takes a village to raise a
child. Distribution decisions happen at the neighbourhood
and community level with respect to infrastructure like
community centres and parks. But some of the most
important distribution questions that impact the value of the
child benefit package must be asked of senior governments
— at the provincial and federal levels — which have the
authority to tax income and expenditures. Local and regional
ECD planning will therefore be more effective the more
public budgetary decisions engage with the place of children
162
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Bibliography
Bibliography
Bakker, Isabella, ed. 1996. Rethinking Restructuring: Gender
and Change in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Berrueta-Clement, John, Lawrence Schweinhart, W. Steven
Barnett, Ann Epstein, and David Weikart. 1984.
Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool
Program on Youths Through Age 19. Ypsilanti, Mi:
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Boyle, Michael H., and Eleen L. Lipman. 2002. Do Places
Matter? Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Behavioural
Problems of Children in Canada. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology 70 (2):378-389.
Bradshaw, Jonathan, and Naomi Finch. 2002. A Comparison
of Child Benefit Packages in 22 Countries. Leeds:
UK Department for Work and Pensions.
Broberg, Anders G., Holger Wessels, Michael E. Lamb, and
C. Philip Hwang. 1997. Effects of Day Care on the
Development of Cognitive Abilities in 8-Year-Olds:
A Longitudinal Study. Developmental Psychology 33
(1):62-69.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Greg J. Duncan, Pamela Kato
Klebanov, and Naomi Sealand. 1993. Do
Neighborhoods Influence Child and Adolescent
Development. American Journal of Sociology 99
(2):353-395.
Burton, Linda M., and Robin L. Jarrett. 2000. In the Mix,
Yet on the Margins: The Place of Families in Urban
Neighborhood and Child Development Research.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1114-1135.
Chandler, Michael J., and Christopher Lalonde. 1998. Cultural
Community as a Hedge against Suicide in Canada's
First Nations. Transcultural Psychiatry 35 (2):191-
219.
Chrisjohn, R. D., S. L. Young, and M. Maraun. 1997. The
Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian
Residential School Experience in Canada. Penticton:
Theytus Books.
Curtis, Lori J., Martin D. Dooley, and Shelley Phipps. 2004.
Child Well-being and Neighbourhood Quality:
Evidence from the Canadian National Longitudinal
Survey of Children and Youth. Social Science and
Medicine 58:1917-1927.
D'Angiulli, Amedeo, Linda S. Siegel, and Clyde Hertzman.
2004. Schooling, Socioeconomic Context and Literacy
Development. Educational Pyschology 24 (6):867-
884.
Duxbury, Linda, and Chris Higgins. 2003. Where to Work
in Canada? An Examination of Regional Differences
in Work-Life Practices. Vancouver: BC Council of
the Families.
First Call. Early Childhood Development in BC: First Call's
Framework for Action 2003 [cited. Available from
http://www.firstcallbc.org/publications/.
Foster, L. T., and M. Wright. 2002. Patterns and Trends in
Children in the Care of the Province of British
Columbia: Ecological, Policy and Cultural
Perspectives. In Too Small to See, Too Big to Ignore:
Child Health and Well-being in British Columbia,
edited by M. V. Hayes and L. T. Foster. Victoria:
Western Geographical Press.
Fraser, Nancy. 1994. After the Family Wage: Gender Equity
and the Welfare State. Political Theory 22 (4):591-
618.
Galster, G., and S. Killen. 1995. The Geography of
Metropolitan Opportunity: A Reconnaissance and
Conceptual Framework. Housing Policy Debate 6:7-
43.
163

Gilder, George. 1987. Welfare's 'New Consensus': The
Collapse of the American Family. The Public Interest
89:20-25.
Hayes, C.D., J.L. Palmer, and J.J. Zaslow, eds. 1990. Who
Cares for America's Children: Child Care Policy for
the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Heckman, James, and Lance Lochner. 2000. Rethinking
Education and Training Policy. In Securing the Future:
Investing in Children from Birth to College, edited
by S. Danziger and J. Waldfogel. New York: Russell
Sage.
Helburn, Susan, ed. 1995. Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes
in Child Care Centres: Technical Report. Denver:
Department of Economics, University of Colorado
at Denver.
Hertzman, Clyde, C. Power, S. Matthews, and O. Manor.
2001. Using an Interactive Framework of Society
and Lifecourse to Explain Self-rated Health in Early
Adulthood. Social Science and Medicine 53:1575-
1585.
Hertzman, Clyde. 2000. The Case for an Early Childhood
Development Strategy. Isuma: Canadian Journal of
Policy Research 1 (2):11-18.
Hertzman, Clyde, Sidney A. McLean, Dafna Kohen, Jim
Dunn, and Terry Evans. Early Development in
Vancouver: Report of the Community Asset Mapping
Project (CAMP). Human Early Learning Partnership
2002 [cited. Available from
http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/vancouvermaps.pdf.
Howes, C., and C. Hamilton. 1993. The Changing Experience
of Child Care: Changes in Teachers and in Teacher-
Child Relationships and Children's Social Competence
with Peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly
8:15-32.
Howes, C., D.A. Phillips, and M. Whitebook. 1992.
Thresholds of Quality: Implications for the Social
Development of Children in Centre-based Child Care.
Child Development 63:449-460.
Jacobs, E.V., G. Selig, and D.R. White. 1992. Classroom
Behaviour in Grade One: Does the Quality of
Preschool Day Care Experience Make a Difference?
Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood
Education 3:89-100.
Jencks, C., and S. Mayer. 1990. The Social Consequences
of Growing up in a Poor Neighborhood. In Inner-
City Poverty in the United States, edited by L. Lynn
and M. McGeary. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Keating, Daniel P., and Clyde Hertzman, eds. 1999.
Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations:
Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Keels, Micere, Greg J. Duncan, Stefanie Deluca, Ruby
Mendenhall, and James Rosenbaum. 2005. Fifteen
Years Later: Can Residential Mobility Programs
Provide a Long-Term Escape from Neighbourhood
Segregation, Crime, and Poverty? Demography 42
(1):51-73.
Kendall, P.R.W. 2001. Health Status of Children and Youth
in Care in British Columbia: What do the Mortality
Data Show? Victoria, BC: Office of the Provincial
Health Officer, Ministry of Health and Ministry
Responsible for Seniors.
Kershaw, Paul. 2004. 'Choice' Discourse in BC Child Care:
Distancing Policy from Research. Canadian Journal
of Political Science 37 (4):927-950.
———. 2005. Carefair: Rethinking the Responsibilities
and Rights of Citizenship. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press.
Kershaw, Paul, Barry Forer, and Hillel Goelman. forthcoming.
Hidden Fragility: Closure among Child Care Services
in BC. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
Klebanov, Pamela Kato, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Cecelia
McCarton, and Marie C. McCormick. 1998. The
Contribution of Neighborhood and Family Income
to Developmental Test Scores over the First Three
Years of Life. Child Development 69 (5):1420-1436.
164
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

Klein, Seth, and Andrea Long. 2003. A Bad Time to be Poor.
Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives/Social Planning and Research Council
of BC.
Phillips, D., D. Mekos, S. Scarr, K. McCartney, and M.
Abbott-Shin. 2000. Within and Beyond the Classroom
Door: Assessing Quality in Child Care Centers. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 15 (4):475-496.
Bibliography
Kohen, Dafna, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Tama Leventhal, and
Clyde Hertzman. 2002. Neighborhood Income and
Physical and Social Disorder in Canada: Associations
with Young Children's Competencies. Child
Development 73 (6):1844-1860.
Kretzman, John P., and J.L. McKnight. 1993. Building
Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward
Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets.
Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, 1993.
Leventhal, Tama, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2004. A
Randomized Study of Neighborhood Effects on Low-
Income Children's Educational Attainments.
Developmental Psychology 40 (4):488-507.
Maggi, Stefania, Dafna Kohen, Clyde Hertzman, and Amedeo
D'Angiulli. 2004. Effects of Neighborhood
Socioeconomic Characteristics and Class Composition
on Highly Competent Children. Journal of
Educational Research 98 (2):109-114.
National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile 1999. National
Council of Welfare 2002 [cited January 19, 2004.
Available from
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportpove
rtypro99/Introduction_e.htm.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
2001. Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education
and Care. Paris: OECD.
Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford, M.L.
Culkin, C. Howes, and S.L. Kagan. 1999. The Children
of the Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study Go To
School. Executive Summary. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina: Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Sainsbury, Diane. 1996. Gender, Equality and Welfare States.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Statistics Canada. The Daily, November 9, 1999. General
Social Survey: Time Use 1999c [cited December
11, 2001. Available from
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/991109/d9911
09a.htm.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., and K. Verschueren. 2002. Attachment
in childhood. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood
Social Development, edited by P. K. Smith and C. H.
Hart. MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Suomi, S. J. 1999. Developmental Trajectories, Early
Experiences, and Community Consensus: Lessons
from Studies from Rhesus Monkeys. In Development
Health and the Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological,
and Educational Dynamics, edited by Daniel Keating
and Clyde Hertzman. New York: Guilford Press.
Trocme, N., B. MacLaurin, B. Fallon, J. Daciuk, D.
Billingsley, M. Tourigny, M. Mayer, J. Wright, G.
Burford, J. Hornick, R. Sullivan, and B. McKenzie.
2001. The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported
Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report. Ottawa:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Canada.
Turley, Ruth, N. Lopez. 2003. When Do Neighborhoods
Matter? The Role of Race and Neighborhood Peers.
Social Science Research 32:61-79.
UNICEF. 2005. Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005.
Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Wadsworth, M. E. J. 1997. Health Inequalities in the Life
Course Perspective. Social Science & Medicine
44:859-869.
165

Weikart, D. P. 1998. Changing Early Childhood Development
Through Educational Intervention. Preventative
Medicine 27:233-237.
Weller, F., and B. Wharf. 2002. Contradictions in Child
Welfare. In Too Small to See, Too Big to Ignore:
Child Health and Well-being in British Columbia,
edited by M. V. Hayes and L. T. Foster. Victoria:
Western Geographical Press.
Willms, J. Douglas, ed. 2002. Vulnerable Children.
Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The
Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
166
The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development

WESTERN GEOGRAPHICAL SERIES
Department of Geography, University of Victoria
1 The Geographer and Society (1970)
2 Geographica (1970)
3 Resources, Recreation and Research (1970)
4 Okanagan Water Decisions (1972)
6 Oil Pollution as an International Problem (1973)
7 Handbook of Geographical Games (1973)
9 Modifying the Weather (1973)
10 Themes on Pacific Lands (1974)
11 Calgary: Metropolitan Structure and Influence (1975)
13 Pacific Salmon: Management for People (1977)
14 Specialists and Air Pollution: Occupations and Preoccupations (1977)
15 Edmonton: The Emerging Metropolitan Pattern (1978)
18 Regina: Regional Isolation and Innovative Development (1980)
20 Environmental Aesthetics: Essays in Interpretation (1982)
21 Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options (1983)
23 Reducing Cancer Mortality: A Geographical Perspective (1986)
24 The Future Saskatchewan Small Town (1988)
25 Landscape Evaluation: Approaches and Applications (1989)
26 The Geography of Death: Mortality Atlas of British Columbia, 1985-1989 (1992)
27 Community, Environment and Health: Geographic Perspectives (1992)
28 Trade Opportunities: Saskatchewan/Canada—Shandong/China (1993)
29 The Determinants of Population Health: A Critical Assessment (1994)
30 Land of Genghis Khan: The Rise and Fall of Nation-States in China’s Northern Frontiers (1995)
missing volume numbers are out of print
CANADIAN WESTERN GEOGRAPHICAL SERIES
Western Geographical Press; distributed by UBC Press
31 A Persistent Spirit: Towards Understanding Aboriginal Health in British Columbia (1995) out of print
32 Building and Rebuilding Harmony: The Gateway to Victoria’s Chinatown (1997)
33 Troubles in the Rainforest: British Columbia’s Forest Economy in Transition (1997)
34 The Dragon’s Head: Shanghai, China’s Emerging Megacity (1998)
35 Too Small to See, Too Big to Ignore: Child Health and Well-being in British Columbia (2002)
36 British Columbia, The Pacific Province: Geographical Essays (2001)
37 Prospects for Development in the Asia-Pacific Area (2000)
38 Demography, Democracy, and Development: Pacific Rim Experiences (2002)
39 The Youth of British Columbia: Their Present and Their Future (2005)
40 The British Columbia Atlas of Child Development (2005)
INTERNATIONAL WESTERN GEOGRAPHICAL SERIES
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Cartographic Design: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (1996); Quality Management in Urban Tourism (1997)