Maintenance enforcement by neighbourhood income in seven reporting census metropolitan areas
Archived Content
Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
By Paul Robinson
Incomes of female lone-parent families lowest of all economic family types
About 5% of children in reporting CMAs were enrolled in MEPs
More children in MEPs came from the lowest income neighbourhoods in the three CMAs studied
Median monthly amount of regular support due 21% less for families in lowest income neighbourhoods
Compliance and collection rates were lower in lowest income neighbourhoods
In the lowest income neighbourhoods, proportionally more money received comes from federal interceptions
Summary
Description of methodology
Detailed data tables
References
Notes
During the 1980s and 1990s, all provincial and territorial governments created Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEPs) to provide assistance to payors and recipients of child and spousal support, and to improve compliance with support payments primarily for the benefit of the children involved in the parental break up (Statistics Canada, 2002). Through provincial and territorial legislation, the programs were given a number of administrative enforcement powers to secure payments before resorting to the courts. In 1987, the federal government enacted the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA), which, among other legislative powers, allowed the government to redirect income tax refunds and federal payments from a non-compliant payor to the recipient.
Not all families receiving child support enrol in a Maintenance Enforcement Program. The decision to enrol in a MEP, or have the MEP enforce the case, resides primarily with the recipient of the support payment, usually the parent residing with the children (the child beneficiaries of the support are also considered enrolled in the program). According to the General Social Survey, in 2006, just over one-third of parents with a child support arrangement in Canada (includes both payors and recipients), who divorced or separated between 2001 and 2006, had their child support case registered with a MEP.
All MEPs except those in Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and Nunavut report data to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics through either the Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs (SMEP) or the Maintenance Enforcement Survey (MES), and data from these surveys are published annually (Robinson, 2009).
This report examines maintenance enforcement cases enrolled in 2008/2009 by neighbourhood income in the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) from the four provinces reporting to the SMEP that have CMAs: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In the SMEP, no data are available on the income of families receiving support. However, an analytical technique employed by researchers is to use the income of the neighbourhood in which persons or families live as a measure of socio-economic status (Luo et al, 2004; Luo et al, 2006; Urquia et al, 2007). Based on this work, which has primarily been done in the health field, this article will utilize family income information available from the 2006 Census to profile differences in maintenance enforcement cases in different types of neighbourhoods within reporting CMAs.
CMAs include the urban core and adjacent municipalities with a high degree of social and economic integration with the urban core. There are seven CMAs included in this study: Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton. Neighbourhoods correspond to census tracts (CTs), which are small, relatively stable geographic areas that usually have a population of 2,500 to 8,000 and are as homogeneous as possible in terms of socio-economic characteristics, including economic status and social living conditions. The analysis is limited to CMAs, as these are the only geographic classifications that contain CTs.1
More specifically, this report examines the incomes of female lone-parent families in the seven CMAs. Female lone-parent families, as defined by the Census, are those families headed by a mother, with one or more children living in the dwelling, and with no spouse or common-law partner present. The focus is placed on these particular families because they most closely resemble the clients of Maintenance Enforcement Programs who are receiving support.2 On July 1, 2008, for example, the recipient in 96% of cases enrolled in MEPs in the seven CMAs was female and 97% of cases had child beneficiaries.
Using family income data from the 2006 Census, neighbourhoods in each CMA are classified into five equal groups or quintiles based on the percentage of female lone-parent families in low income.3 Families are considered in low income if their after-tax income is below the low income after-tax cut-off (LICO-AT). Cut-offs are set at an income level, differentiated by the size of family and area of residence, where a family would spend 20 percentage points more of their after-tax income on food, shelter and clothing than the average family. The one-fifth of neighbourhoods with the greatest proportions of female-lone parent families living in low income are classified as the lowest income neighbourhoods.4
The first part of the article analyses the incomes of female lone-parent families in the seven CMAs, and compares them with other types of families. Next, the report looks at the number and proportion of children enrolled in MEPs that come from the lowest income neighbourhoods versus other neighbourhoods. The final part of the article profiles differences between MEP cases from the lowest income neighbourhoods and those from other types of neighbourhoods by comparing the amount of payments due, compliance and collection indicators, and use of enforcement tools.
Incomes of female lone-parent families lowest of all economic family types
Incomes for lone-parent mothers were the lowest of all the major economic family types in 2005,5 and have been the lowest over the 25-year period between 1980 and 2005 (Statistics Canada, 2008). In 2005, the average after-tax income was $41,887 for female lone-parent families living in Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton, compared to $59,065 for male lone-parent families and $84,234 for couple families.
Chart 1
Average incomes for female lone-parent families considerably lower than average income for couple families
Note: figures are a weighted average, based on the number of families, of all the reporting census metropolitan areas: Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton.
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population.
Family incomes vary somewhat by CMA (Table 1). Average incomes in the eastern CMAs were lower than those in the western centres, particularly Alberta. For lone-parent mothers, average incomes were lowest in Saint John ($31,800) and highest in Calgary ($48,400).
Families headed by lone-parent mothers are more likely to live in low income. Almost 24% of female lone-parent families were in low income in the seven CMAs, compared to 11% of male lone-parent families and 5% of couple families.
| Census metropolitan areas | Prevalence of low income | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| female lone-parent families | male lone-parent families | couple families | |
| percent | |||
| Halifax | 23.8 | 11.0 | 4.4 |
| Moncton | 24.6 | 18.2 | 4.3 |
| Saint John | 28.4 | 10.8 | 4.7 |
| Regina | 24.1 | 11.3 | 2.9 |
| Saskatoon | 30.0 | 13.5 | 4.2 |
| Calgary | 20.5 | 9.9 | 5.3 |
| Edmonton | 23.8 | 9.3 | 4.9 |
| Total | 23.6 | 10.6 | 4.8 |
| Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population. | |||
Lone-parent mothers tend to rely more on government transfers and other income sources, which includes child support, than couple families or lone-parent fathers. In 2005, non-employment income constituted 28% of total income for female lone-parent families, compared to 17% for both male lone-parent families and couple families in the seven CMAs.
About 5% of children in reporting CMAs were enrolled in MEPs
On July 1, 2008, about 5% of children aged 19 years or under living in the reporting CMAs were enrolled in provincial Maintenance Enforcement Programs (Text table 2).6 The proportion of children enrolled ranged from 3% of children in Saskatoon to 9% of children in Saint John.
| Census metropolitan areas | Total children | Children enrolled in MEPs |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| number | number | percent | |
| Halifax | 86,435 | 5,560 | 6.4 |
| Moncton | 27,967 | 2,295 | 8.2 |
| Saint John | 29,659 | 2,640 | 8.9 |
| Regina1 | 51,380 | 1,870 | 3.6 |
| Saskatoon1 | 62,418 | 1,925 | 3.1 |
| Calgary | 286,317 | 10,890 | 3.8 |
| Edmonton | 270,210 | 14,225 | 5.3 |
| Total | 814,386 | 39,405 | 4.8 |
|
1. For Regina and Saskatoon, counts of children enrolled in Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEPs) are from December 31, 2009. Note: Includes non-interjurisdiction support order and interjurisdictional support order-out cases with at least one child beneficiary under the age of 20 and with a known location. As a result of the random rounding methodology, some small differences can be expected in the corresponding values between tables. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs and Demography Division, Estimates of population by Age and Sex for Census Divisions, Census Metropolitan Areas and Economic Regions (Component Method) (accessed December 9, 2009). |
|||
Variations in the proportions of children enrolled among CMAs could be attributable to different registration procedures employed by the MEPs. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, for example, are opt-out jurisdictions where all new court orders for support are automatically filed directly from the court to the MEP; the recipient may opt-out of the program if he or she does not want to use the MEP services. Saskatchewan and Alberta, on the other hand, are opt-in jurisdictions where, in most cases, the recipient is responsible to initiate registration with the MEP.7
More children in MEPs came from the lowest income neighbourhoods in the three CMAs studied
The distribution of children enrolled in MEPs is not evenly spread across neighbourhoods in the three CMAs for which data are available for May 2006 (Map 1, Halifax) (Map 2, Calgary) (Map 3, Edmonton). The lowest income neighbourhoods in Halifax, Calgary and Edmonton had the highest proportion of children in MEPs (Table 2).8 In the three CMAs, 9% of children living in the lowest income neighbourhoods were enrolled in MEPs, compared to 4% of children from the highest income neighbourhoods. In the lowest income neighbourhoods, the proportion of children enrolled in MEPs was highest in Halifax (11%) and lowest in Calgary (8%).
Not only was the proportion of children enrolled in MEPs highest in the lowest income neighbourhoods, the actual number of children enrolled in MEPs from the lowest income neighbourhoods was also greatest (Chart 2). In May 2006, about 8,800 children enrolled in MEPs in the three CMAs were from the lowest income neighbourhoods; on the other hand, 5,200 children were from the highest income neighbourhoods.
Chart 2
More than a quarter of the children enrolled in Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEP) are from the lowest-income neighbourhoods
Note: Excludes neighbourhoods with 30 or fewer female lone-parent families.
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population and Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs.
Median monthly amount of regular support due 21% less for families in lowest income neighbourhoods
In March 2009, the median monthly amount of regular support due for families was $318 (Text table 3) in the seven CMAs. Moncton and Saint John had the lowest median amount due ($238), while Calgary and Edmonton had the highest ($350). Regular support is the ongoing maintenance payments, which are usually monthly, that the payor is required to make under a court order or support agreement registered with court.
The amount of child support due is often calculated using the child support guidelines (Department of Justice, 2002). Court orders for support made under the Divorce Act generally use the federal child support guidelines. Some jurisdictions also have similar provincial child support guidelines for orders authorized by provincial legislation. The guidelines primarily consider the income of the payor, the number of child beneficiaries and the province or territory where the payor lives to determine the amount of support.
| Census metropolitan areas | Median payment due1 |
|---|---|
| amount in dollars | |
| Halifax | 300 |
| Moncton | 238 |
| Saint John | 238 |
| Regina | 300 |
| Saskatoon | 318 |
| Calgary | 350 |
| Edmonton | 350 |
| Total | 318 |
|
1. The median calculation excludes cases with no payment due. Cases may have a $0 amount due for several reasons including: they have no regular ongoing obligation, they only have arrears, or they have a different payment schedule, such as quarterly. Note: Includes non-interjurisdiction support order and interjurisdictional support order-out cases with at least one child beneficiary under the age of 20 and with a known location. As a result of the random rounding methodology, some small differences can be expected in the corresponding values between tables. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs. |
|
In the lowest income neighbourhoods, the median amount due for families with one child beneficiary was $238 (Chart 3) which was 21% lower than the median amount due in the highest income neighbourhoods ($300). The largest difference was in Halifax, where the median payment due was 26% less than in the highest income neighbourhoods. For families in the seven CMAs with more than one child beneficiary, median amounts due were 25% lower in the lowest income neighbourhoods compared to the highest income neighbourhoods.
Chart 3
Median regular payment due in March 2009 lower in lowest income neighbourhoods in seven census metropolitan areas
Note: Includes Non-Interjurisdictional support order and Interjurisdictional support order-out cases with at least one child beneficiary under the age of 20 and with a known location. As the amount of payment due increases with each additional child support beneficiary, to enhance comparability, the chart is limited to Maintenance Enforcement Program cases with only one child support beneficiary, who is 19 years of age or under as of March 31, 2009.
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population and Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs.
Besides generally having lower amounts due, there are other case characteristics that are more prevalent in families living in the lowest income neighbourhoods (Table 3). For example, more families have their payment assigned to the Crown. Assignment occurs when the recipient is on social assistance, and payments received on the case go to the government to offset social assistance costs. More families in the lowest income neighbourhoods also have their child support payments authorized under provincial legislation, as opposed to the Divorce Act. Provincial or territorial legislation is used to authorize support payments in the following situations: the parents are ending a common-law union, or married parents are separating but not divorcing.
Compliance and collection rates were lower in lowest income neighbourhoods
Although the amounts due are lower in the lowest income neighbourhoods, fewer families in these neighbourhoods are receiving their child support payments compared to families living elsewhere in the CMA. In March 2009, for the seven CMAs, 56% of families in the lowest income neighbourhoods received their regular payment in full and another 10% received partial payment (Text table 4). For the highest income neighbourhoods, 66% of families received their regular payment in full and another 16% received partial payment. In each CMA, although the majority of cases that are enrolled are enforced by the provincial MEP, some cases are interjurisdictional and are enforced by an out-of-province MEP, or even a child support agency in another country, if the payor lives or has assets in another province or country. The proportion of cases enforced by an out-of-province MEP ranged from 8% in Edmonton to 19% in Saskatoon.
| Census metropolitan areas | Lowest income neighbourhoods | Highest income neighbourhoods | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| percent | |||
| Halifax1 | 55.5 | 61.4 | 60.6 |
| Moncton | 55.3 | 65.1 | 61.0 |
| Saint John | 59.9 | 71.5 | 67.4 |
| Regina | 58.6 | 66.1 | 63.3 |
| Saskatoon | 64.7 | 67.9 | 69.3 |
| Calgary | 53.1 | 65.6 | 58.9 |
| Edmonton | 56.3 | 67.7 | 62.5 |
| Total | 56.0 | 66.3 | 61.9 |
|
1. Nova Scotia allows direct payments in exceptional circumstances to be made and received by their clientele, however, unauthorized direct payments are not encouraged. Since some of these direct payments are not reported until after the survey data are collected, some payors are reported as not having paid, even though they actually have. About 1% of cases each month report a payment, or payments, being made in a previous month. Note: Includes non-interjurisdiction support order and interjurisdictional support order-out cases with at least one child beneficiary under the age of 20 and with a known location. Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs. |
|||
Compliance rates for both the lowest and highest income neighbourhoods have gradually increased over the four year period from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009 in Halifax, Calgary and Edmonton (the three CMAs for which data are available) (Table 4). This finding was also true provincially.
The collection rate is another indicator used by the Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs to measure compliance. The collection rate represents the amount of money received for a group of cases over the fiscal year as a percentage of the amount that was due. Unlike the compliance rate which includes only on-time, regular payments, the collection rate also includes late payments and non-regular payments due, such as event driven payments, scheduled arrears payments and other payments due to the jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, regular payments due constitute more than 97% of total payment due. The one exception is Alberta, where 85% of total payments due are regular payments (Martin and Robinson, 2008).
In the five CMAs (Regina and Saskatoon are excluded from all 2008/2009 fiscal year analysis, as Saskatchewan began reporting data in January 2009), the collection rate was 78% for the lowest income neighbourhoods, compared to 85% in the highest income neighbourhoods (Table 5). Halifax was the only CMA where the collection rate for the lowest income neighbourhoods was higher than for the highest income neighbourhoods.
With proportionally fewer families receiving their full support payments each month, not surprisingly a higher percentage of cases in the lowest income neighbourhoods are owed arrears for previously missed support payments. About 68% of families from the lowest income neighbourhoods are owed arrears, compared to 59% from the highest income neighbourhoods (Table 6). In general, more money was owed to families from the lowest income neighbourhoods. The median amount owing ($4,766) was 15% higher than the median amount for families owed arrears in the highest income neighbourhoods.
In the lowest income neighbourhoods, proportionally more money received comes from federal interceptions
If support payments are not forthcoming, MEPs can undertake a variety of actions to enforce payment. There are two main categories of enforcement actions: administrative enforcement (for example, wage garnishments, motor vehicle license interventions) and court enforcement (primarily default hearings). Administrative enforcement powers are derived from both provincial and federal legislation. In Alberta, for example, administrative enforcement activities were taken against approximately two-thirds of payors in 2008/2009.9
A common enforcement tool used by MEPs is federal interceptions. Under FOAEAA, MEPs can intercept and redirect federal funds, such as income tax refunds or employment insurance benefits, to offset support arrears. In 2008/2009, about $143 million of federal funds were intercepted and redistributed to child support recipients in all provinces and territories (Department of Justice, 2009). MEPs can also garnish the salaries and pensions of federal government employees under the federal Garnishment, Attachment, and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA). For the programs reporting to the SMEP, however, federal garnishments are used much less frequently than interceptions (Robinson, 2009).
In the five CMAs (excludes Regina and Saskatoon), an estimated $8.3 million in federal interceptions and federal garnishments were received by the MEPs in 2008/2009,10 which accounted for about 8% of total payments received (Table 7).11 Relative to higher income neighbourhoods, federal interceptions and garnishments were a more important payment source for families in the lowest income neighbourhoods. In the five CMAs, an estimated 11% of total payment received was from federal interceptions in the lowest income neighbourhoods, compared to 6% for the highest income neighbourhoods.
Summary
In Canada, female lone-parent families have tended to be more disadvantaged socio-economically than other types of families. In 2005, in the seven CMAs analysed in the article (Halifax, Moncton, Saint John, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Edmonton), average after-tax income for female lone-parent families was less than half that of couple families; almost one-quarter of female lone-parent families lived in low income and female lone-parent families relied more heavily on non-employment sources of income.
In the seven CMAs, about 5% of children were enrolled in MEPs on July 1, 2008. Saskatoon had the smallest proportion (3%) and Saint John the highest (9%). Within these CMAs, more children enrolled in MEPs come from the lowest income neighbourhoods. In June 2006, about 9% of children in the lowest income neighbourhoods of Halifax, Calgary and Edmonton were enrolled in a MEP, compared to 4% of children in the highest income neighbourhoods.
Differences exist between MEP cases in the lowest income neighbourhoods versus other types of neighbourhoods. In particular, cases from the lowest income neighbourhoods generally have lower compliance and collection rates, and are more likely to have arrears. With lower compliance, more enforcement is required to secure payments for families in the lowest income neighbourhoods. For example, as a percentage of total payments received, federal interceptions play a greater role in lowest income neighbourhoods (an estimated 11% of total payment received) than highest income neighbourhoods (6%).
Description of Methodology
Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs
The Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs (SMEP) is currently being implemented by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) at Statistics Canada. The SMEP gathers information on maintenance enforcement cases, and on some of the key characteristics associated with those cases. This includes the number of cases enrolled and the age and sex of the recipients and payors of support. In addition, survey data provide information on financial matters, the processing of payments, and the tracing and enforcement actions taken by Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEPs).
Currently seven provinces and territories report data to the SMEP (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon and the Northwest Territories). Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia report to the Maintenance Enforcement Survey (MES), which is the older aggregate data survey.
Geo-coding
The SMEP collects residential postal codes of the recipient in each case enrolled. Children involved with the case are assumed to reside with the recipient. The Postal Code Conversion File Plus (PCCF+), version 5e, was used to convert postal codes for recipients into standard geographic codes for locating recipients by census metropolitan areas and census tracts. When the association between the postal code and census geography is not unique, the PCCF+ allows for a proportional allocation based on the population count.
In census metropolitan areas, postal codes are generally associated with one census tract, so errors are minimal when converting postal codes. However, occasionally a postal code may be associated with two or more census tracts that are in different income quintiles, resulting in erroneously identifying children as living in one type of neighbourhood when they may not be. In Calgary, for example, 0.8% of children classified as living in the lowest income neighbourhoods may actually had lived in another type of neighbourhood.
Income quintiles
The categorization of income quintiles was based on the proportion of female lone-parent families below the after-tax low income cut-off (LICO-AT) in each census tract (CT).
CTs were ranked from lowest proportion to the highest, then divided into five equal groups, called quintiles. The CTs with the greatest proportions of female lone-parent families in low income were labelled the lowest income neighbourhoods. Prevalence of low income in CTs is based upon rounded data. Some small discrepancies may exist between rounded proportions and actual proportions of families in low income.
The after-tax low income measure was used over other measures because it takes into account family structure (e.g. a four person family requires more money than a two person family), whereas median and average income do not. The income of female lone-parent families was used exclusively, because this type of family most closely resembles the structure of a typical family receiving child support that is enrolled in a MEP.
Detailed data tables
Table 1 Average after-tax income in 2005 by family type, seven census metropolitan areas
Table 5 Collection rates by type of neighbourhood, 2008/2009, five census metropolitan areas
References
Department of Justice, 2002. Children come first: a report to Parliament reviewing the provisions and operations of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.Vol. 1. Ottawa, Ontario.
Department of Justice, 2009. 2008-09 Annual Report of the Family Law Assistance Services (FLAS) unit of the Department of Justice Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
Luo, Zhong-Cheng, Williams J. Kierans, Russell Wilkins, Robert M. Liston, Jemalt Mohamed, Michael S. Kramer. "Disparities in birth outcomes by neighbourhood income, in British Columbia". Epidemiology 2004; 15(6): p. 679-686.
Luo, Zhong-Cheng, Russell Wilkins, Michael S. Kramer. "Effect of neighbourhood income and maternal education on birth outcomes: a population-based study". Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006; 174(10) p. 1415-1420.
Martin, Chantal and Paul Robinson. 2008. Child and Spousal Support: Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics, 2006/2007. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-228-X.
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-228-x/85-228-x2008000-eng.pdf (accessed January 20, 2010).
Robinson, Paul. 2009. Child and Spousal Support: Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics, 2008/2009. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-228-X.
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-228-x/85-228-x2010000-eng.htm (accessed January 20, 2010).
Statistics Canada. 2002. Maintenance Enforcement Programs in Canada: Description of Operations, 1999/2000. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-552-XIE.
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-552-x/85-552-x2000001-eng.pdf (accessed January 20, 2010).
Statistics Canada. 2008. Earnings and Incomes of Canadians Over the Past Quarter Century, 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 97-563-X. Ottawa.
www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-563/index-eng.cfm?CFID=3471750&CFTOKEN=57386899 (accessed January 20, 2010).
Urquia, Marcelo L., John W. Frank, Richard H. Glazier, Rahim Moineddin. 2007. "Birth outcomes by neighbourhood income and recent immigration in Toronto." Health Reports.Vol. 18, no. 4. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 82-003-X.
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2006010/article/birth-naissance/10356-eng.pdf
(accessed January 20, 2010).
Notes
- Census Agglomerations with an urban core population of 50,000 or more in previous Census have CTs as well, however the number of CTs is small, limiting the analysis.
- Some limitations exist between the Census definition of female lone-parent families and families enrolled in MEPs. Female lone-parent families include widows and widowers (about 20% of the 1.4 million lone-parent families in Canada); in MEPs, if the payor of child support passes away, the MEP will usually close the case. As well, families with only adult children living at home are included in the Census classification, but families enrolled in MEPs are excluded from this analysis if all children in the family are 20 years or older.
- Neighbourhoods with less than 30 female lone-parent families are excluded. In all CMAs, this is less than 5% of total neighbourhoods.
- Data from the most recent fiscal year, 2008/2009, are used to present maintenance enforcement statistics by income level of the neighbourhood, thus allowing data from New Brunswick and Saskatchewan to be incorporated in the report. The income level of the neighbourhood was determined using the 2006 Census of Population, and is based on 2005 incomes. Data from 2005/2006 to 2008/2009 for Halifax, Calgary and Edmonton were analysed, and for all SMEP indicators used in this report, there was very little fiscal year variation in the results for each income quintile over the four-year period.
- The 2006 Census collected information on 2005 income.
- Children from cases with unknown postal codes are excluded from sub-provincial analysis. The number of children with unknown postal codes on July 1, 2008 ranged from 1% in New Brunswick to 5% in Alberta. Thus, the proportion of children enrolled in MEPs in the CMAs is slightly underestimated.
- In Alberta and Saskatchewan, registration with the MEP is mandatory for recipients on social assistance.
- This part of the analysis is limited to CMAs in Nova Scotia and Alberta, as these were the only jurisdictions that were reporting data to the Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs in May 2006, the reference period for the 2006 Census of Population. The Census is the main source for census tract data.
- This is based on all cases for which Alberta had primary enforcement responsibility. Primary enforcement responsibility is all Non-ISO/ISO-in cases enrolled. In these cases, the payor resides in the jurisdiction and the MEP is responsible for enforcing payment. For ISO-out cases, where the recipient lives in-province and the payor resides in another jurisdiction, the reciprocating jurisdiction (i.e. the jurisdiction where the payor resides) usually handles the enforcement. Alberta data were used as an example because there was more complete reporting of enforcement actions. In other jurisdictions, some actions are not reported to the SMEP because data on the enforcement action are not stored electronically in the MEP information system.
- There are some limitations around source of payment received in the SMEP. The SMEP receives data on a monthly basis from the MEPs. Multiple payments can be received in any given month; however, the source of payment information relates only to the last payment received. The total amount received for the month less any adjustments will be attributed to the last payment source. Thus the amount of payment received by source could be either overstated or understated. The extent of this limitation is unknown.
- This is based on non-ISO cases, i.e. those cases being enforced by the local MEP. ISO-out cases that are being enforced by a MEP in another jurisdiction are excluded, as details on the source of payment are not available. The majority of cases are non-ISO.
- Date modified: