Report on Trends in Inuit Communities, 1981-2011

The Community Well-Being Index: Report on Trends in Inuit Communities, 1981-2011

Strategic Research Directorate Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada April 2015

Suggested Citation: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. (2015). The Community Well-Being Index: Report on Trends in Inuit Communities, 1981-2011. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

For information regarding reproduction rights, please contact Public Works and Government Services Canada at: 613-996-6886 or at: [email protected] www.aandc.gc.ca 1-800-567-9604 TTY only 1-866-553-0554

QS- Y392-000-EE-A1 Catalogue : R3-170/1-2014E-PDF ISBN: 978-0-660-22802-0

© Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2015. This Publication is also available in French under the title: L’indice du bien-être des collectivités: Rapport sur les tendances dans les collectivités inuites, de 1981-2011.

Page | 2 Executive Summary

The Community Well-Being (CWB) index is a means of measuring socio-economic well-being in First Nations, Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities. The CWB index combines data on income, education, housing and labour force activity into well-being “scores” for most communities in Canada. These scores are used to compare well-being across First Nations and Inuit communities with the well-being of non-Aboriginal communities. CWB index scores were calculated for 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006, based on Canada’s Census of Population1. Scores for 2011 have been calculated based on the 2011 National Household Survey2.

This paper examines Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities only. An analysis of First Nations communities is covered in a separate report.

The average CWB score for Inuit communities increased over the last 30 years, with the largest gains seen before 2001. There was a 12-point increase between 1981 and 1996, compared to a 3-point increase between 1996 and 2011.

The CWB gap between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities is substantial. In 2011, the average CWB score for Inuit communities was 16 points lower than the average score for non-Aboriginal communities. This gap is a few points narrower than it was in 1981.

Until 1996, Inuit communities improved slightly faster than non-Aboriginal communities and the CWB gap narrowed. Those reductions in the gap were largely undone when non-Aboriginal communities improved more than First Nations communities did between 2001 and 2006.

The widening of the CWB gap that occurred between 2001 and 2006 was partially driven by a jump in non-Aboriginal communities’ high school completion rates. This jump should be interpreted with caution: the education questions on the census were changed in 2006, reducing the comparability of 2006 education data with data from previous censuses.

Nevertheless, the narrowing of the gap that was observed before 1996 did not resume after 2006: between 2006 and 2011, Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities improved at similar rates and the CWB gap was relatively stable.

The gaps between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities vary by CWB component and each component has undergone different changes over time. Inuit communities’ largest improvements since 1981 were in the areas of income and education. The largest gap between Inuit and non- Aboriginal communities is in housing. That gap has not narrowed in recent years.

The average CWB score for each of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat increased between 1981 and 2011.

Background

Along with First Nations and Métis, Inuit are one of the three Aboriginal groups identified under The Constitution Act (1982). They have lived in what is now northern Canada for over 5,000 years with their unique history, culture, and traditions (ITK 2004). Although most Inuit participate in Western structures like the formal education system and the wage-based economy, many Inuit alive today lived a traditional nomadic lifestyle for the first part of their lives.

In 2011, 59,445 individuals reported Inuit identity in the National Household Survey (NHS). Almost three-quarters of these lived in settlements across Canada’s north, under one of four land claim agreements. Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland) comprises Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador), Nunavik (Northern Quebec), the Territory of Nunavut and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories).

Page | 3 As do other Aboriginal groups, Inuit lag behind non-Aboriginal Canadians in many socio- economic indicators, including education, income, and employment (INAC & ITK 2006a, b, c).

In 1999, in an effort to augment and contextualize anecdotal information and qualitative research, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) began to develop systematic quantitative measures of well-being for First Nations and Inuit peoples. The first such measure was the Registered Indian Human Development Index (Registered Indian HDI), modelled after the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI defines well-being in terms of educational attainment, income and life expectancy. It has been used since 1990 to measure well-being in some 170 countries. Analyses of the Inuit HDI from 1991-2001 revealed that the well-being of Inuit regions had increased, but remained lower than that of other Canadians (Senécal et al. 2007). Anecdotal evidence, however, suggested that well- being varied greatly across Aboriginal communities and that the Inuit HDI, therefore, might provide an incomplete picture of well-being. The Community Well-Being (CWB) index was thus developed as a community-level complement to the national- and regional-level HDI for First Nations and Inuit communities in Canada.

The CWB index was developed to look at socio-economic well-being at the community level. Since community-level life expectancy estimates would be either unreliable or unavailable due to the small population size of communities, the index had to be modified from the original HDI. In addition, housing and labour force activity were considered areas of concern in First Nations and Inuit communities, and were thus introduced into the index3.

Methodology

Defining the CWB Index

A community's CWB index score is a single number that can range from a low of zero to a high of 100. It is composed of data on income, education, housing conditions and labour force activity. These components are described below. Complete details on the CWB methodology are provided in The Community Well-Being (CWB) Index: Methodological Details, available at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rs/pubs/cwb/cwbmd-eng.asp

1) Income The income component of the CWB index is defined in terms of total income per capita, in accordance with the following formula:

The formula maps each community’s income per capita onto a theoretical range. Doing so allows income per capita to be expressed as a percentage, which is the metric in which the other components of the index are naturally expressed. A range of $2,000 to $40,000 dollars was selected when the index was first calculated. This range was selected because it coincides with the approximate lowest and highest incomes per capita found in Canadian communities in 2001, which was the most recent year of data availability at the time. In the rare case where a community’s income per capita fell outside of this range, it was recoded to either $2,000 or $40,000. This range is evaluated each CWB cycle to ascertain its continued appropriateness.

Note that the formula converts dollars of income per capita into logarithms. This is done to account for “the diminishing marginal utility of income.” According to this principle, those who occupy lower income strata will benefit more from additional income than those at higher income levels (Cooke, 2007, p.29).

2) Education

Page | 4

The education component is composed of the following two variables:

1. "High school plus": the proportion of a community's population, 20 years and over, that has obtained at least a high school certificate. For simplicity’s sake, this proportion is often referred to in this document as the “high school completion rate” even though it includes individuals who did not obtain a high school certificate, but did acquire a credential beyond the high school level. 2. "University": the proportion of a community's population, 25 years and over, that has obtained a university degree at the bachelor's level or higher.

The high school plus variable accounts for two-thirds of the education component, while the university variable accounts for one third.

3) Housing

The housing component comprises equally-weighted indicators of housing quantity and quality.

1. “Housing quantity”: the proportion of the population living in dwellings that contain no more than one person per room. 2. “Housing quality”: the proportion of the population living in dwellings that is not in need of major repairs.

4) Labour Force Activity

The labour force activity component is composed of the following two equally-weighted variables:

1. “Labour force participation”: the proportion of the population, aged 20-65, that was involved in the labour force during the week preceding census day - i.e. Census reference week. 2. “Employment”: the percentage of labour force participants, aged 20-65, that was employed during Census reference week.

Availability of Data

CWB scores have been calculated for 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011. Scores for 1986 were not calculated as information on dwelling conditions was not collected in the 1986 Census. CWB scores from the censuses of 1981, 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006 are available for every community in Canada with a population of at least 65, that was not an incompletely enumerated reserve4, and whose global non-response rate5 did not exceed 25%. In addition, CWB component scores (i.e., income, education, housing and labour force activity scores) are available for communities containing at least 40 households and 250 individuals.

Data availability rules for the NHS-based CWB scores of 2011 are somewhat different. CWB scores are available for every community in Canada with a weighted population of at least 65 persons and at least 10 respondents. CWB component scores are available for communities with at least a weighted population of 250, provided the total individuals with income, as well as the sum of the two numerators in each of the education, labour force and housing components, was at least four unweighted and at least 10 weighted.

Following the release criteria established by Statistics Canada, AANDC does not publish 2011 CWB scores for communities with a global non-response rate of 50% or higher, though these scores are included in aggregate calculations. CWB scores for these communities are available upon request (provided all other release criteria have been met), though they should be interpreted with caution.

Page | 5 Defining Communities

Communities are defined in terms of census subdivisions (CSDs). CSDs are municipalities or areas (such as Indian reserves) that are regarded as the equivalent of municipalities. For purposes of comparison, communities in this analysis are categorized as First Nations communities, Inuit communities or non-Aboriginal communities.

First Nations comprise those communities that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Statistics Canada classify as "on-reserve," plus a selection of other CSDs in Northern Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory that are associated with a First Nation group and have a substantial First Nations population.

Inuit communities do not have specific legal status in Canada in the same way that First Nations reserves do, but Inuit organizations have pursued and signed Land Claim Settlements in four regions across Canada’s north. Inuit communities are governed in different ways in these four regions, either through public government, or some other form of Aboriginal self-government. All of these communities, however, are named within one of the four land claim agreements and are thus considered Inuit communities for purposes of this study6. The four regions7 are, from east to west:

 Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador) – 5 communities  Nunavik (Northern Quebec) – 14 communities  The Territory of Nunavut – 25 communities  The Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories) – 6 communities

Although the last of the four land claim agreements (in Nunatsiavut) was only finalized in 2005, all regions previously have been represented by various national and regional Inuit organizations. Within these organizations, these communities have been considered “Inuit communities” on an informal or semi-formal basis. For this reason, we examine these communities, and the regions they are a part of, in their present-day political alignment for the entire time-period of study (i.e., 1981 to 2011). When looking at Nunavut in 1981, for instance, we are looking at the communities that are today a part of the Territory of Nunavut, even though (in 1981) they were politically and geographically a part of the Northwest Territories. In addition, two communities located in present-day Nunavut have never been classified as Inuit communities because their populations were too small to support analysis since 2001. They did have CWB scores in 1996 and earlier, however, when they were classified as non-Aboriginal communities.

The 50 communities defined above have been consistent from 1991 to 2011, but five communities in Nunavik are not included in the 1981 data. Four communities (Ivujivik, Povungituk, Kangirsuk and Umiujaq) were incorporated as communities either after, or shortly before, the 1981 Census, so they do not appear as CSDs in the 1981 Census data. Additionally, an issue with the housing data meant that a 1981 score could not be produced for the community of Kuujjuarapik. This difference in community numbers, and the potential effect this may have on the Nunavik average rates, should be kept in mind throughout the present study. CSDs that are neither First Nations nor Inuit communities are classified as non-Aboriginal communities. It is important to note that some non-Aboriginal communities have substantial Aboriginal populations8. It is also worth noting that others who use the CWB index may choose to classify communities in different ways. For example, one could reclassify non-Aboriginal communities with substantial Métis populations as Métis.

Comparing CWB Index Scores across Time

Four issues complicate the comparison of CWB scores across time. These are outlined below.

1) Inflation

Page | 6 Owing to inflation, the value of a dollar tends to decrease over time. To ensure that the CWB is measuring actual changes in income rather than the effects of inflation, income data from the 1981-2001 censuses and the 2011 NHS were transformed into 2005 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Since 2006 is the reference year for the CWB time series, no adjustment was required to those income data.

2) Missing Data

Scores for some communities are missing from some or all of the six CWB cycles (1981, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011). As indicated above, scores may be missing for a community in a given year because of non-participation in the Census, inadequate data quality or insufficient population size.

3) Changes in Community Boundaries

Communities can experience "boundary changes" between censuses. They can merge with other communities, divide into two or more communities, annex parts of other communities, etc. When this happens, it can be difficult to know what caused a change in a community's CWB index score from one census to the next. For example, if a community's score went from 70 in 1981 to 80 in 1991 and that community experienced a boundary change whereby it annexed part of another community, the improved CWB score could have been the result of a "real" change in the well- being of the original community, or a consequence of previously existing higher well-being in the annexed area, or a combination of both.

Analyses based on 2006 data revealed that boundary changes had little effect on national or regional average CWB scores. While these averages may be safely compared across time, boundary changes can seriously impact the comparability of individual communities across time9. In Inuit Nunangat, Nunavik was the only region affected by boundary changes. Besides the four communities mentioned above that were incorporated after 1981, the town of Kuujjuarapik underwent a boundary change between 1986 and 1991. The boundary shift resulted in a change from a population of 193 in 1986 to 616 in 1991.

4) Sampling Error10

The CWB Indices of 1981-2006 were based on the “long form” of the census. These censuses were distributed to all households in First Nations, Inuit, and remote communities, and to a sample of 1/5 of households in other Canadian communities. The 2011 CWB index was based on the National Household Survey. It was distributed to all households in First Nations, Inuit and remote communities and to a sample of 1/3 of households in other Canadian communities.

For a sampled community, it is possible that a fluctuation (or lack thereof) in its CWB score from one CWB cycle to the next is the result of sampling error. It is difficult to ascertain the impact of sampling error on a given community’s score in a given year, though impact generally decreases as the population of a community increases. Researchers are reminded to interpret individual communities’ CWB scores with caution and to emphasize general trends rather than cycle-to- cycle fluctuations.

5) Non-Sampling Error11

The type of non-sampling error that is most relevant to at least the most recent iteration of the CWB is non-response error. As indicated above, CWB indices constructed prior to 2011 were based on the long form of the Census of Canada. Because the census was mandatory, response rates were very high (e.g. 94% in 2006). The overall response rate for the voluntary NHS was lower (69% unweighted, 77% weighted) and response rates varied from community to

Page | 7 community. Importantly, the First Nations and Inuit communities included in the 2011 CWB analysis had an average response rate of 82%.

Statistics Canada (Finès & Findlay, 2014) conducted analyses to determine whether the non- response error in the NHS undermined the validity of the CWB index. They determined that the quality of the 2011 CWB did not appear to have been adversely affected, but advised caution when looking at individual communities with small populations and/or high non-response rates. AANDC conducted additional analyses that reached the same conclusion. It is nonetheless important to note that Statistics Canada's standard cautions regarding the comparability of the voluntary NHS to previous mandatory censuses are generally applicable to the CWB.

6) Changes to the Education questions

In 2006, Statistics Canada changed the census questions related to education. First, the single question that had been used to capture educational attainment was replaced with a series of questions. Statistics Canada made the change “to address suspected underreporting of high school completions” (Statistics Canada, 2008). Second, the education questions were reformulated to focus on credentials obtained at the high school level and higher. Educational attainment that did not result in a credential (such as completion of elementary school or partial completion on high school or post-secondary programs) was no longer captured. Although education is defined in the exact same way in each iteration of the CWB, it is possible that the methodological changes introduced in 2006 impacted the comparability of 2001 and 2006 education scores. Specifically, these changes may have caused an artificially large jump in the 2006 education score for non-Aboriginal communities, which was led primarily by a jump in the high school completion sub-component. This jump did not occur in First Nations or Inuit Communities’ average scores. As a result, the education gaps between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities widened between 2001 and 2006. Although the widening of the education gap between 2001 and 2006 may have been a statistical artifact, it is notable that the narrowing of the gap that had been observed prior to 2001 did not resume after 2006.

Advantages and Limitations of the CWB Index

The CWB is a useful research tool. It is only one of many ways of measuring well-being and users should be mindful of both its advantages and limitations. The two are actually closely related.

The CWB was designed to fulfil four research objectives:

1. to provide a systematic, reliable summary measure of socio-economic well-being for individual Canadian communities; 2. to illustrate variations in well-being across First Nations and Inuit communities and how it compares to that of non-Aboriginal communities; 3. to allow well-being to be tracked over time; and, 4. to be compatible with other community-level data to facilitate a wide variety of research on the factors associated with well-being.

CWB developers quickly ascertained that the Census of Population was the only data source capable of fulfilling these research needs. However, using the Census and it successor, the NHS, also imposes some limitations on the CWB index.

First, the available indicators of well-being pertain mainly to socioeconomic well-being. Other equally important aspects of well-being are not addressed. Numerous attempts to quantify well- being have been made, and many composite indicators like the CWB have been developed. Although none of these measures can fulfill the research needs for which the CWB was designed, they highlight the variety of factors that may be regarded as constituting well-being. Physical and

Page | 8 emotional health, cultural continuity and environmental conservation are three commonly employed indicators of well-being that are excluded from the CWB index12.

Second, the indicators used in the CWB may not fully capture the economic realities of some First Nations and Inuit communities. For example, many are still heavily involved in traditional economic pursuits. Such pursuits, despite contributing to material well-being, may not be reflected in the monetary income or paid employment captured by the CWB index.

Results

National Trends, 1981 -2011

CWB Index Scores

Figure 1 plots the average CWB scores for Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities from 1981 to 2011. The trend line for First Nations communities is also provided for context.

Page | 9 Figure 1: Community Well-Being Averages Over Time, Inuit, First Nations and Non- Aboriginal Communities, 1981 to 2011 90 79 77 80 73 71 72 70 67 63 60 61 62 60 57 59 48 57 57 50 55 51 40 47 Inuit Communities Average CWB Score CWB Average 30 First Nations Non-Aboriginal Communities 20 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

In addition to changes in average CWB scores, it is important to examine changes in individual communities’ scores over time. This permits us to distinguish between a scenario wherein all communities experience "slow but steady" improvement in well-being and a scenario wherein communities experience erratic periods of "boom and bust”13. Table 1 provides the percentages of communities whose CWB scores have increased or remained stable14 in each intercensal period15. It indicates that, across community types in all intercensal periods, only a minority of communities experienced decline. Table 1 also indicates that Inuit communities were more likely to decline in later intercensal periods than in earlier periods. This is similar to First Nations communities, but contrasts with non-Aboriginal communities, which have had very low rates of decline in recent years.

Table 1: Percentages of First Nations, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities whose CWB Scores Remained Stable or Increased in Each Intercensal Period

Communities Where CWB Scores Increased or Were Stable First Nations Non-Aboriginal Period Inuit Communities Communities Communities

1981-1991 77% (291/379) 96% (43/45) 90% (3969/4435)

1991-1996 82% (371/452) 90% (45/50) 71% (3146/4402)

1996-2001 71% (332/468) 70% (35/50) 83% (3012/3648)

2001-2006 64% (286/448) 70% (35/50) 90% (3402/3763)

2006-2011 64% (309/483) 68% (34/50) 81% (3008/3720)

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 10

CWB Component Scores, 1981-2011

As noted above, the CWB is made up of four components: income, education, housing, and labour force activity. Each can range from a low of zero to a high of 100.

From largest to smallest, the component gaps between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities are as follows: housing (29 points), education (20 points), labour force activity (8 points), and income (7 points).

Figure 2: CWB Component Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 2011

100 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities

90 GAP GAP GAP 7 8 80 29 70

50 94 84 GAP 84 40 77 20 76 30 65 53 Average Component Score Component Average 20 33 10

0 Income Education Housing Labour Force Activity

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011

Each CWB component has undergone different changes over time:

1. Income: Since 1981, the average income score for Inuit communities has increased 29 points and the income gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities has narrowed by two-thirds. With only a seven-point gap remaining in 2011, Inuit communities will approach parity with non-Aboriginal communities by 2021, if current rates of increase persist.

Page | 11 Figure 3: Average Income Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011

90 84 80 80 77 73 73 69 77 70 70 60 64 62 60 50

Average Income Score Income Average 48 40 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

2. Education: The average education score for Inuit communities also increased considerably between 1981 and 2011 (17 points).

The education gap between Inuit communities and non-Aboriginal communities was quite stable until 2001, although it narrowed slightly between 1981 and 1991. Between 2001 and 2006, the gap widened as a result of a large jump in the average education score for non-Aboriginal communities. As mentioned above, this jump should be interpreted with caution.

The gap widened again between 2006 and 2011. The average education score for non-Aboriginal communities increased, while Inuit communities’ education score, for the first time since 1981, did not improve.

Figure 4: Average Education Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 60 53 49 50 41 39 40 35

28 30 33 33 28 30 20 25

Average Education Score Education Average 10 16 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 12 Figures 5 and 6, respectively, illustrate changes in the two constituents of the education score: High School Plus and University. They demonstrate that increases in the education component were driven by increases in communities’ high school completion rates. They also illustrate the large jump in the average non-Aboriginal high school completion rate that occurred from 2001 - 2006 and that may be at least partially attributable to changes to the Census questionnaire. With this jump, the high school completion gap between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities went from a low of 17 points in 2001 to an all-time high of 24 points in 2006. The gap widened to 29 points by 2011, as the average high school plus score for Inuit communities failed to improve for the first time in 30 years.

Increases in university completion were modest for both Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities. The gap between their averages was a near-negligible three points wide in 2011. Nevertheless, the gap has been increasing since 1996, when the average university scores for Inuit and non- Aboriginal communities were effectively the same.

Figure 5: Average High School Plus Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981- 2011 80 74 69 70 58 60 54 50 50 40 40 45 45 41 39 30 35 20 21 10 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities

Average Score Plus High School Average 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 13 Figure 6: Average University Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 12 11

10 10 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 7 6 5 6 4 5

Average University Score University Average 2 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

3. Housing: The average housing score for non-Aboriginal communities has been consistently high since 1981, reflecting generally strong housing conditions across the country. The average housing score for Inuit communities improved moderately in the 1980s and 1990s, but declined back to its 1991 level by 2011.

Over the thirty year period between 1981 and 2011, the housing gap between Inuit and non- Aboriginal communities narrowed by a modest seven points.

Figure 7: Average Housing Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011

100 93 94 94 91 93 93 90

70 71 72 60 67 66 65

50 55

Average Housing Score Housing Average 40 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figures 8 and 9, respectively, illustrate changes in the two variables that compose the housing score: Housing Quantity and Housing Quality. Until 2001, housing quantity was improving and the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities was cut in half. Conversely, housing quality declined between 1996 and 2006 and the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities grew considerably. Both housing quality and housing quantity were relatively stable in the most recent intercensal period.

Page | 14

Figure 8: Average Housing Quantity, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 100 90 98 98 99 99 98 93 80 70 69 60 66 65 62 50 55 40 30 32 20

Average Housing Quantity Score Quantity Housing Average 10 Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figure 9: Average Housing Quality, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 100 89 88 88 88 89 89 90

80 81 78 79 70 75

60 66 65

Average Housing Quality Score Quality Housing Average Inuit Communities Non-Aboriginal Communities 40 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

4. Labour Force Activity: Inuit communities’ average labour force activity score increased slowly between 1981 and 1996. The labour force activity gap between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities narrowed to only a few points between 1996 and 2001. These gains were largely lost in later years, however. Inuit communities’ average labour force activity score was only four points higher in 2011 than it was in 1981 and the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities remained at eight points.

Page | 15 Figure 10: Average Labour Force Activity Scores, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 90 84 84

Score 83 85 82 81 80 80 Activity

78 78

Force 75

77 76 75 70 72 Labour

Average Inuit Communities Non‐Aboriginal Communities 60 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figures 11 and 12, respectively, illustrate changes in the two constituents of the labour force activity score: Labour Force Participation and Employment.

Inuit communities’ average labour force participation score increased slowly until 2001, at which point it was nearly at parity with that of non-Aboriginal communities. It declined slowly thereafter. It was still twelve points higher in 2011 than in 1981, but the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities had re-emerged.

Inuit communities’ average employment score lost a few points between 1981 and 2011. The gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities remained a moderate 10 points wide in 2011, but it was nonetheless double what it was prior to 2001.

Figure 11: Average Labour Force Participation Score, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 80 77 77 77 77

76 75 70 75 74 70 72 71 Participation

65 68 Force

Score 60 Labour 59 55 Inuit Communities Non‐Aboriginal Communities

Average 50 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 16 Figure 12: Average Employment Score, Inuit and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 1981-2011 100

95 90 91 91 Score 89 90 87 87

85 85 Employment 80 83 82 81 80 81

Average 75 Inuit Communities Non‐Aboriginal Communities 70 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Regional Trends, 1981-2011

The CWB Index by Region

Figure 13 plots the average CWB scores for non-Aboriginal communities and the four regions of Inuit Nunangat from 1981 to 2011. As stated above, Inuit Nunangat comprises four distinct geographic and political regions. Each of these four regions has had a different history in terms of Western contact, settlement into sedentary communities, and self-determination within the larger Canadian political landscape. To what degree these and other factors have directly or indirectly affected socio-economic performance is beyond the scope of this analysis, but the present study indicates that the socio-economic situation does vary somewhat from region to region.

Nunavut experienced relatively strong well-being improvements in the 1980s and 1990s before leveling off after 2001. Nunavik’s average CWB score increased until 1996, stabilizing afterwards. Inuvialuit Region and Nunatsiavut increased fairly consistently across the 30-year period. In 1981, Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, and Inuvialuit Region had very similar CWB scores, while Nunavik lagged behind. By 2011, Nunavik had caught up to Nunavut but both lagged several points behind Nunatsiavut and Inuvialuit Region.

Page | 17 Figure 13: Average CWB Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

80 79 75 70 67 67 65 62 60 61

55 53 51 50 50 Nunatsiavut 45 Nunavik Average CWB Score CWB Average 40 Nunavut 35 36 Inuvialuit Region Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

The CWB Components and Sub-Components by Region

Examining component and sub-component scores by region allows us to examine with greater specificity what contributes to patterns in CWB index scores in Inuit communities. Note that the sizes of these four regions vary. Nunatsiavut comprises 5 communities and the Inuvialuit Region 6, which must be considered when looking at some of the patterns seen below.

1. Income: The income trends were similar across Inuit regions between 1981 and 2011 (figure 14). Income rose for the first part of the series (particularly in Nunavik), slowed somewhat during the middle period until 2001 and then increased a little more quickly in the last two intercensal periods (2001 to 2006 and 2006 to 2011). Only Nunatsiavut showed a slower and steadier increase in income from 1981 to 2001 but then showed average income improvement similar to other regions from 2001 to 2011.

Page | 18 Figure 14: Average Income Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

50 Nunatsiavut 40 Nunavik Nunavut Average Income Score Average 30 Inuvialuit Region Non-Aboriginal Communities 20 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

2. Education: Education scores improved or remained stable for each Inuit region for every year, with the exception of a slight decrease for the Inuvialuit Region from 1996 to 2001. Nunatsiavut showed the greatest increase in average education score, particularly since 1991, approaching parity with non-Aboriginal communities in 2001. In 2011, Nunatsiavut’s average was about 10 points higher than those of the other three regions, which have similar scores in the mid to low 30s.

Figure 15: Average Education Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

20 Nunatsiavut Nunavik 10 Nunavut

Average Education Score Average Inuvialuit Region Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 19 Figure 16 shows the high school plus sub-component score for the population 20 years and over. The pattern here is virtually identical to the overall education component (see Figure 15 above). Compared to a steady improvement in high school completion in non-Aboriginal communities, Inuit Nunangat improved modestly and the gap persisted between non-Aboriginal communities and most Inuit regions. An exception is Nunatsiavut, which showed strong improvement between 1991 and 2006.

Figure 16: Average High School Plus Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

30 Nunatsiavut Nunavik 20 Nunavut Inuvialuit Region Average High School Plus Score Average 10 Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figure 17 shows the university subcomponent by region. The average scores for all Inuit regions fluctuated between 1981 and 2011, but all ultimately increased. Nunatsiavut showed the largest gain. Although all Inuit regions lag behind non-Aboriginal communities in 2011, this was not formerly the case. In particular, the university score for Nunavik rose markedly before falling back after 1996. One important consideration, however, is that the overall university scores for all groups are low (the high, which was for non-Aboriginal communities in 2011, was just over 11). This may increase the possibility that different populations within communities are affecting the overall score, based on the idea that many of the non-Inuit in these communities live there for work reasons and thus are generally well-educated. Indeed, while the national proportion of non- Aboriginal Canadians with a university degree is around 26%, the proportion of the non-Aboriginal population in Inuit Nunangat with a university degree is just over 45% (2011 NHS, custom AANDC tabulations). Berger (2006) notes that Inuit in Nunavut tend not to hold most of the higher-level jobs in the public service which require a good education. As stated above, one must always be mindful of the relatively small number of Inuit communities when interpreting larger fluctuations in scores. Further work is needed to examine these issues.

Page | 20 Figure 17: Average University Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

4 Nunatsiavut Nunavik Average University Score University Average Nunavut 2 Inuvialuit Region Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

3. Housing: Between 1981 and 2001, all regions in Inuit Nunangat improved their average housing score except for Nunavik, which improved until 1996 then declined from 1996 to 2001. Between 2001 and 2011, Nunatsiavut’s score increased. However, Nunavut and Inuvialuit Region declined during this period while Nunavik declined between 1996 and 2006 but then recovered in the last intercensal period. Although there is general improvement in average housing scores for all regions in Inuit Nunangat between 1981 and 2011, there is a slightly wider range of scores in 2011 than in 1981. By comparison, housing in non-Aboriginal communities is consistently high.

Figure 18: Average Housing Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011 100 90 80 70 60 Nunatsiavut 50 Nunavik Nunavut 40 Inuvialuit Region

Average Housing Score Average Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 21 Average housing quantity scores are plotted in Figure 19. Non-Aboriginal communities have a housing quantity score consistently near the top of the scale throughout the entire time series. All regions of Inuit Nunangat improved from 1981 to 2011. Although the gaps relative to non- Aboriginal communities did narrow over this period, there remains a fairly wide spread between the highest and lowest Inuit regional averages in 2011, which first became evident in 2006.

Figure 19: Average Housing Quantity Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011 100 90 80 70 60 50

Score 40 Nunatsiavut 30 Nunavik Nunavut 20 Inuvialuit Region Average Husing Quantity Husing Quantity Average 10 Non-Aboriginal Communities 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figure 20 looks at housing quality. Compared to consistently high housing quality scores for non- Aboriginal communities, there is a great deal of variation between Inuit regions, though they generally have lower scores. Between 1981 and 2001, Nunavut and Inuvialuit Region were fairly consistent but then declined in the last two intercensal periods (2001 to 2006 and 2006 to 2011). Nunavik, on the other hand, rose dramatically between 1981 and 1996, and even averaged higher than the rest of Canada (1996), only to fall even more dramatically, so that it was the lowest scoring region in 2011. Nunatsiavut, by comparison, fell from near parity with non- Aboriginal communities in 1981, to the worst-averaging region in 1991 then slowly increased its average housing quality score between 1996 and 2011.

Page | 22 Figure 20: Average Housing Quality Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011 100

Score 60

50 Nunatsiavut Nunavik

Average Housing Quality Housing Quality Average 40 Nunavut Inuvialuit Region Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

4: Labour Force Activity: More so than the other three CWB components, labour force activity seems to demonstrate some notable differences between the regions of Inuit Nunangat. Nunavik rose from being the lowest averaging region in 1981 to being the highest in the last two intercensal periods (2001-2006 and 2006-2011), even averaging higher than non-Aboriginal communities in 1996. Inuvialuit Region and Nunavut maintained fairly steady scores throughout the study period, although Inuvialuit Region dipped in the last two intercensal periods and Nunavut in the last. Nunatsiavut is an interesting case, as their labour force score is about 10 points lower than the next lowest region between 1991 and 2006 but then increased in the last intercensal period. This occurred despite the fact that the average income score for Nunatsiavut (Figure 14) is comparable with the other regions.

Figure 21: Average Labour Force Activity Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011 90

70 Score 65

60 Nunatsiavut Nunavik 55 Nunavut Inuvialuit Region Average Labour Force Activity Labour Force Activity Average Non-Aboriginal Communities 50 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 23 The labour force participation score is plotted in Figure 22. The labour force participation score in Inuit Nunangat is interesting, considering two regions (Nunavik and Nunatsiavut) were roughly on par with non-Aboriginal communities in 2011, with Nunavut and Inuvialuit Region close as well. This compares favourably with 1981, where there was a much wider variation between regions. Nunatsiavut, which had a higher participation score than non-Aboriginal communities in 1981, seems to differ from the other regions over the period of study (although the small size of Nunatsiavut must be kept in mind). It is impossible to say what caused the wide variation in Nunatsiavut between 1981 and 1991. However, between 1991 and 2006, Nunatsiavut steadily increased its average labour force participation score. In 2011, it was on par with non-Aboriginal communities.

Figure 22: Average Labour Force Participation Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011

60 Score

Nunatsiavut Nunavik 40 Nunavut Inuvialuit Region Avg. Avg. Labour Force Participation Non-Aboriginal Communities 30 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Figure 23 charts the employment score for Inuit Nunangat. The employment score for non- Aboriginal communities was high in 1981 and again in 2011, with a dip between 1991 and 1996. Inuit regions had varying trends between 1981 and 2011, but all have declined at least slightly since 1996. In 1981, the scores for Nunavut and Inuvialuit Region were comparable to the average for non-Aboriginal communities, but by 2006 the gap had widened for both regions. However, during the last intercensal period, the gap continued to widen for Nunavut but improved for Inuvialuit Region. Nunavik in 2011 had the highest employment score for all Inuit Nunangat, while Nunatsiavut had a score well below that of the other three regions. Similar to the participation score above, it is not possible to explain the change in Nunatsiavut’s score from 1981 to 1991 and again from 1991 to 1996. These changes should be interpreted with caution, since Nunatsiavut is composed of only five communities.

Page | 24 Figure 23: Average Employment Scores, Non-Aboriginal Communities and Inuit Regions, 1981 - 2011 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 Nunatsiavut Nunavik 55 Nunavut Inuvialuit Region Average Employment Employment Score Average Non-Aboriginal Communities 50 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Source: Statistics Canada, Censuses of Population, 1981-2006 and National Household Survey, 2011

Variation Between Individual Communities

Average CWB scores provide only a partial picture of well-being in Inuit communities. CWB scores also vary considerably among individual Inuit communities.

Figure 24 illustrates how Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities are distributed along the CWB spectrum. First Nations communities are also plotted for context. At a glance, the distribution of Inuit communities’ scores looks similar to that of non-Aboriginal communities, both of which are more concentrated around their respective averages than First Nations communities are. Nevertheless, well-being varies more among Inuit than among non-Aboriginal communities. The standard deviation of Inuit communities’ CWB scores (7.7 points) is larger than that of non- Aboriginal communities’ scores (5.7 points).

Page | 25 Figure 24: Distribution of Inuit, First Nations and non-Aboriginal communities’ CWB Scores, Canada, 20111

40% Non-Aboriginal Communities (n = 3784) 35% Inuit Communities (n = 50) First Nations (n = 594) 30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Percentage of Communities 0%

2011 CWB Score Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011

Figure 25 also highlights the greater variability in well-being among Inuit communities compared to non-Aboriginal communities. It illustrates that, in 2011, 95% of non-Aboriginal communities scored within a CWB range of 23 points (from 66 to 89), while the same percentage of Inuit communities score within a 33-point range (from 82 to 49). First Nations communities, by comparison, score within a 39-point range between 78 and 39.

Figure 25: Range of CWB Scores, Inuit, First Nations and Non-Aboriginal Communities, 2011 (Excluding Outliers*)

100 90 High, 89 High, 82 80 High, 78 70 Low, 66 60

CWB Range 50 Low, 49 40 Low, 39 30 Inuit Communities First Nations (n = 594) Non-Aboriginal Communities (n = 50) (n = 3784)

*Outliers, defined as the 2.5% of communities with the lowest scores and the 2.5% of communities with the highest scores, are excluded. Excluding these extreme “tails” is standard practice when comparing relatively normal distributions. Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011

Page | 26

Summary and Conclusion

The Community Well-Being (CWB) index is a useful method of assessing socio-economic well- being at the community level. The information it provides can help inform policies and programs that are aimed at improving the well-being of Aboriginal people. The CWB index helps show where improvements in well-being have been achieved and where significant gaps still exist. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the CWB was designed to fulfil specific research purposes and that it is not necessarily the only or best way to measure well-being in all circumstances.

Both Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities’ average CWB scores increased gradually between 1981 and 2011. Improvement was driven by small increases in most communities’ CWB index scores and not by the combined effect of large increases in some communities and large declines in others.

Despite these improvements, the CWB gap between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities was only a few points smaller in 2011 than it was in 1981. Until 1996, the average CWB score for Inuit communities was increasing at a faster rate than that of non-Aboriginal communities, causing the gap to narrow. The gap widened again between 2001 and 2006, however, and was relatively stable from 2006 to 2011.

With the relatively rapid increases in Inuit communities’ average income score, the income gap between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities has narrowed quite dramatically since 1981. It is on track to be effectively closed by 2024.

Although the average education score for Inuit communities improved considerably between 1981 and 2006, the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities has grown as the latter improved faster.

The Inuit housing score increased by a moderate ten points between 1981 and 2011 and the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities narrowed seven points. The average housing quantity score for Inuit communities was increasing until 2001 but dropped back a few points thereafter. The average housing quantity score was increasing very slowly until 1996. It dropped sharply over the next ten years but seems to have stabilized in the most recent intercensal period.

Driven by an increase in labour force participation, the average labour force activity score for Inuit communities was a few points higher in 2011 than in 1981. The gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities was the same size, although it has historically been small compared to the gaps in the other CWB components. Inuit communities’ average employment score lost a few points between 1981 and 2011 and the gap relative to non-Aboriginal communities increased somewhat.

Inuit communities’ average CWB scores vary somewhat between the four regions of Inuit Nunangat, but they have all experienced increases since 1981. It might also be noted that Nunavik, and more frequently Nunatsiavut, showed notable fluctuations in various component and sub-component scores over time. While the Census and NHS are the most reliable and largest data sources for socio-economic statistics in Inuit Nunangat, the small number of communities, particularly in Nunatsiavut, suggests that we must be cautious in interpreting some of these results and speculating on possible determinants.

Well-being scores also vary considerably among individual Inuit communities – more so than among non-Aboriginal communities, but less than among First Nations

Readers are cautioned against emphasizing the disparities between Inuit and non-Aboriginal communities. Inuit communities possess unique characteristics and circumstances. Consequently, one should not assume that conditions in non-Aboriginal communities represent a

Page | 27 goal to which Inuit communities should necessarily aspire. Comparing these two community types is valuable primarily insofar as it aids in the interpretation of trends in well-being. For example, if well-being in Inuit communities improves while well-being in non-Aboriginal communities does not, the “cause” of the improvement may lie in programs, policies, conditions, etc. that are specific to Inuit communities. If other communities also improved, however, the source of improvement might more plausibly be sought in broader economic forces.

Page | 28 Appendix 1: Map of Inuit CWB, 2011

Page | 29 References

Armstrong, R. (2001). The Geographical Patterns of Socio-economic Well-being of First Nations Communities. Agriculture and Rural Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 46. Ottawa: Industry Canada, Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 21-601-MIE01046

Berger, T. (2006) The Nunavut Project. Conciliators Final Report for the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Implementation Contract Negotiations for the Second Planning Period 2003-2013. Vancouver.

Cooke, M. (2005). The First Nations Community Well-Being Index (CWB): A Conceptual Review. Paper prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Catalogue No. R2-400/2005E-PDF

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Inuit Tapirit Kanatami. (2006a) Gains Made by Inuit in Formal Education and School Attendance, 1981-2001. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Catalogue No. R2-452/2006E-PDF

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Inuit Tapirit Kanatami. (2006b) Levels and Sources of Individual Income for Inuit in Canada, 1981-2001. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Catalogue No. No.R2-461/2007E-PDF

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Inuit Tapirit Kanatami. (2006c) Employment, Industry and Occupations of Inuit in Canada, 1981-2001. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Catalogue No. R2-455/2007E-PDF

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2004) 5000 Years of Inuit History and Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/5000YearHeritage_0.pdf

Lapointe, R., S. Senécal and E. Guimond. 2009. “The Well-Being of Communities with Significant Métis Population in Canada”, Canadian Issues, winter issue, 85-92

Penney, C., and O'Sullivan, E. (2014) Are there well-being gaps within First Nation and Inuit communities? Retrieved from http://www.gcpedia.gc.ca/gcwiki/images/7/7c/Comm_Compossition_EN_Jan_2014.pdf Available on request from [email protected]

Senécal, S., O’Sullivan, E., Guimond, E., & Uppal, S. (2007) Applying the Community Well-Being Index and the Human Development Index to Inuit in Canada. In J. White, D. Beavon, & N. Spence (Eds). Aboriginal Well-Being. Toronto: Thompson Educational Press. 149-172.

Sharpe, A. (1999). A Survey of Indicators of Economic and Social Well-being. Paper prepared for the Canadian Policy Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.csls.ca/reports/paper3a.pdf

Statistics Canada. (2008). Education, 2006 Census. Ottawa: Statics Canada. Catalogue No. 97- 560-GWE2006003. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/rp-guides/education-eng.cfm

Statistics Canada. (2011). 2011 National Household Survey User Guide. Catalogue No. 99-001- X2011001. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/ref/nhs-enm_guide/index-eng.cfm

1 Detailed information on Canadian census data is available from Statistics Canada at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- recensement/index-eng.cfm. 2 Detailed information on the 2011 National Household Survey is available from Statistics Canada at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm?HPA

Page | 30

3 Robin Armstrong’s (2001) groundbreaking work on well-being in First Nations communities provided methodological guidance to the developers of the CWB. 4 A reserve is deemed incompletely enumerated if it was not permitted to be enumerated or if enumeration was incomplete or of insufficient quality. 5 Global non-response rate is the percentage of required responses left unanswered by respondents. 6 The terms “Inuit communities” and “Inuit Nunangat” are used interchangeably in this report. 7 See Appendix 1 for a map of Inuit Nunangat. 8 CWB scores are based on all community residents since all contribute economically, socially and culturally to the communities in which they live. A study based on 2006 data (Penney and O’Sullivan 2014) showed that including non- Aboriginal residents in Aboriginal communities’ CWB scores had little impact on broad CWB patterns. Nevertheless, some individual communities’ scores were influenced by their non-Aboriginal populations. We therefore caution against regarding First Nations or Inuit communities’ scores as proxies for their First Nations or Inuit residents. 9 Likewise, sensitivity analyses were based on only three groupings of communities: First Nations, Inuit and other Canadian communities. As indicated above, researchers may decide to group communities in different ways. The extent to which boundary changes affect the average scores of different community groupings is unknown. Researchers who wish to compare individual communities or user-defined groups of communities across time are encouraged to consider the possible effects of boundary changes. 10 More detailed information on sampling error is available on Statistics Canada’s website at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/power-pouvoir/ch6/sampling-echantillonage/5214807-eng.htm 11 Non-sampling error is discussed in detail on Statistics Canada’s website at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/edu/power- pouvoir/ch6/nse-endae/5214806-eng.htm. Details specific to the CWB are provided in The Community Well-Being (CWB) Index: Methodological Details (http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rs/pubs/cwb/cwbmd-eng.asp) for additional details. 12 Descriptions and reviews of some recent and ongoing efforts to measure well-being are available from the UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org/en/data) and the Canadian Index of Well-Being (https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/). Sharpe (1999) and Cooke (2005) may also provide insight into various well-being metrics. 13 For example, imagine we are measuring well-being in only two communities: Community A and Community B. In 1981, Community A had a score of 0 and Community B had a score of 100. The average score for these two communities in 1981 was, therefore, 50. In 2011, the average score for these 2 communities was still 50, suggesting that well-being remained stable for these communities between 1981 and 2011. When we look at the individual communities’ scores, however, we see that, in 2011, Community A had a score of 100 while Community B’s score had dropped to zero. The extreme "boom and bust" pattern of these communities was masked by the consistency of their average score across time. 14 Most communities’ scores changed very little from cycle to cycle. Consequently, the number of communities whose scores decrease versus those remaining stable or increasing is impacted by how rounding is applied when changes from cycle to cycle are calculated. The numbers in table 1 were calculated using the following formula, where the change from 2006-2011 is used as an example: if round((CWB 2011 – CWB 2006) >= 0), 2006-2011 change = stable or increase; if round((CWB 2011 – CWB 2006) < 0) 2006-2011 change = decrease. 15 Intercensal periods are the five-year periods between Canadian censuses. For simplicity’s sake, the 2006-2011 period is also referred to as an intercensal period, even though the 2011 CWB is based on the National Household Survey rather than a census.

Page | 31