We considered we were the only ones giving Wolfville a black oculus but it seems we hold competition. Gumshoe Groot
The Community Foundation's Vital Signs Report
is making a fairly good occupation excessively, assisted and abetted by the Town [ taxpayers, to the line of at least $ 5000 ] and the WBDC [ which gave at least another $ 5000 ] and the media.
The CH headline tells Wolfville poverty rates high
How many will read the mayor 's disclaimer that the stats make n't only come from the Town of Wolfville but besides from the bordering country.
We were really mystified by the figures as they were exhibited in the media so we indited a missive to Mister Groot some years ago following the Advertizer and CBC radiocommunication studies. We copy it here:
Dearest Mister Groot,
I am perplexed by some figures I saw in the paper some years ago ( Adman Oct 6 pg 7 Verve Study, Wolfville by the Numbers.
) It tells:
For the 440 fry under age of 14 life in Wolfville, the minor poorness rate was about 25 % higher than the provincial norm.
There was besides a mention to this fig on CBC radiocommunication this forenoon. For the benefit of our readers could you say us where these statistics come from?
In the Vital Signs 2009 sheets distributed at the ATF which we hold been given there is no youngster poorness fig that we could happen. There is - on the Economy sheet a fig for over all impoverishment which bespeaks ( with figures from Stats Can based on the LIM ) that in 2006 the overall poorness rate was26.4 % DOWN
from27.6 % in 2000 which for that yr was merely 3 % higher than the provincial norm and 5 % to a higher degree the national norm.
Over all poorness ( based on income ) is a rattlingly pitiful gage of `` tyke poorness '' so I concur we ca n't utilize those figures. In sum every fry is pitiful, as they are depending on their parents for their demands. A low income house could give their fry everything they require and those youngsters might be better forth than a comparatively goodly to make parent who gives their fry zero and passes the money on themselves, adventuring e.g.. But I besides encounter the fig of 25 % higher than the provincial norm - as adverted in the article and on the radiocommunication this forenoon hard to believe.
Mayhap you can allow us cognize where you got the figures cited so we make n't notice in ignorance.
Maybe you could besides edify us as to what `` entree ' intends to a nutrient bank. Is entree one mortal or a house? Are all `` accessions '' up to each other in sums alloted? Explorer. Are the Numbers in the household numbered? Is there a changeless `` sum '' of nutrient given call at any one `` accession ''? If the units are n't consistent one can not accurately compare `` admittances '' p.a. in any meaningful fashion I consider you must concur. This makes not intend course that you are incorrect, but that you can not apply those figures to support your asseveration.
We would appreciate your illumination on these points. The Wolfville Vital Signs study is not available on the site which would besides be utile.
We were rattlingly happy that at the breakfast the other day you stated that the Community Fund is accountable to us, the community of Wolfville. Answerability is an important value which we appreciate.
We hold up to now holded no answer. But the study HAS, as of today, appeared on the Community Foundation website
First seing roots:
The Community Foundations of Canada and the Centre for the Survey of Life Standards provided us with data from Statistics Canada and other national origins. H owever, as Wolfville holds such a little population, data for the Town was not e'er available
and we shoulded encounter other beginnings of info. E.g., local economical data runs to be hoarded on the footing of the Annapolis Vale Economic Part.
This comprises about 124, 500 people and Wolfville corresponds merely about 3 % of that sum
Additionally, Wolfville holds several economical features that pose it apart from the residual of the Vale which intends that we could not cut the data from the Vale to Wolfville on the ground of population entirely. Similarly, health-related data is entered on the footing of wellness regions and territories. So, for several indicants, we furnish the Vale Numbers, which give some indicant, but make not straightly reflect Wolfville.
Hence the study holds
many strengths, but too some methodological failings.
Methodological failings. That is quite a admittance.
Seing poorness the study says that:
In 2006, the overall poorness rate in Wolfville
, based on the LIM ( Depression Income Step ) 5, was26.4 %, downward from27.6 % in 2000.
Stillly, the 2006 fig was higher than the provincial norm (23.3 % ) and higher than the national norm (21.3 % ).
Beginning: Statistics Canada, Little country administrative data
Accent ours. Observe that the rate is downwardly [ the media maked n't reference that maked they? ] and although it states `` in Wolfville '' the figures are from country data.
Poorness rate for someones aged 65 and over
In 2006, the pre-tax poorness rate in Wolfville ( based on the LIM ) 5 for souls aged 65 and over was14.1 %. This is the lowest the rate holds been since 2000 ( it peaked at16.5 % in 2004 ).
Wolfville 's rate is lower than the provincial rate (15.6 % ) but higher than the national rate (13.5 % ).
Rootage: Statistics Canada. Small Country Administrative Information
Accent ours. Mention that the rate is downwardly
[ unmentioned in the media ] and again although it states it is Wolfville 's rate the root is country data.
Tyke impoverishment rate
In 2005, the kid ( 18 eld and under ) pre-tax impoverishment rate
in Wolfville ( based on the Depression Income Severed ) 6 was20.7 %. This is around 25 % higher than the provincial rate (16.6 % ) and around 17 % higher than the national (17.7 % ) rate for 2005.
Rootage: Statistics Canada, Nosecount 2006
Accent ours.
When you look at the after taxation Numbers for low income ( IE compared to people who hold paid TAXES! ) you can see that the numbers are not as high.
We enquire why they selected to apply the before taxation figures. And we remark that the figures for % in low income after taxation for mortals to a lesser degree 18 geezerhood aged - in that chart is 10 %, lower than the provincial fig of11.5. Females appear to come goodly. The % for them is 0.
We opine they employed a different set of figures, huh?
We observe in the Stats Can notes:
Since its initial publication, Statistics Canada holds clearly and consistently emphasise that the LICOs [ Depression Income Cut Offs ] are not steps of poorness. Instead, LICOs reflect a consistent and chiseled methodology that places those who are substantially worse-off than average.
Users are rede to see prevalence of low income rates based upon little counts with cautiousness.
Are n't statistics playfulness? You can utilize them to any aim as we all cognize. So what is the design of this workout?
Mr Groot stated:
... the info in the study is demanded to ascertain where backing should be directed.
Mayor Lieu stated:
It Holds a set of signs for us to assay to ascertain whether there are shipways we can make better sure sections of the population, particularly around issues of demand, like employ, nutrient bank utilisation, capacity to inhabit here and pay taxations,
We tell: Redistribution of income before? Will the 3 % that Wolfville corresponds take duty for the fiscal welfare of the Annapolis Vale Economic Part? Or will we leave that to the Provincial powers that be?
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
