Content uploaded by Ronald Labonté
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ronald Labonté
Content may be subject to copyright.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion:
A Critical and Comparative Analysis of the
Literature
Ronald Labonté1
Abdullahel Hadi1
Xaxier E. Kauffmann1
1Globalization and Health Equity Research Unit, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Abstract
The concept of social exclusion emerged in the 1970s in response to massive economic restructuring
and efforts to avoid risks to social cohesion and stability. As the concept spread internationally, with it
came efforts to consider how such excluded groups (and the processes by which they became excluded)
could be better integrated (social inclusion) in normatively accepted standards of social, economic,
political and cultural activities. Efforts to theorize, model and measure these processes of social
exclusion/inclusion represent an awareness that a meaningful life in any society, while embedded in
economic and employment security, extends to a larger set of social dimensions or domains; and that
even the economic bedrock is more than simply income poverty, whether considered in absolute or
relative terms. A review of models, indicators and measures for their theoretical and empirical
robustness led to identification of nine domains that capture processes of social exclusion/inclusion:
employment and work, income and economic resources, material resources, education and skills, health,
housing, social resources, community resources, and personal safety. Multiple indicators for each of
these domains were selected, based on frequency and robustness of use. Measures from existing
Canadian data sets were then identified, emphasizing those that could be disaggregated by level and
other equity stratifiers.
Keywords: poverty, deprivation, social exclusion, social inclusion, frameworks, indicators
Internet summary: Processes of social exclusion and social inclusion have gained prominence in public
policy discourse. This paper critically reviews the conceptual development of these terms, models and
frameworks used to represent them, and indicators and measures that could be used in a Canadian
context for purposes of monitoring, or for policy and program development and evaluation.
Résumé
Le concept de l’exclusion sociale a émergé dans les années 1970 à une époque de restructuration
économique massive et de tentatives d’éviter les atteintes à la cohésion et à la stabilité sociales. Avec la
diffusion de ce concept à l’échelle internationale, on a commencé à se pencher sur les processus qui
mènent à l’exclusion de certains groupes et aux façons dont on pourrait assurer leur intégration dans
des activités sociales, économiques, politiques et culturelles normativement acceptées (c’est-à-dire leur
inclusion sociale). Les efforts en vue de théoriser, de modéliser et de mesurer les processus d’exclusion
et d’inclusion sociale illustrent la conscience du fait que dans n’importe quelle société, un vaste
ensemble de dimensions sociales et de domaines influent sur la capacité de vivre une vie pleine de sens,
bien que la sécurité économique et la sécurité d’emploi en soient les fondements. En outre, la simple
pauvreté sur le plan du revenu, que ce soit en termes relatifs ou absolus, n’est qu’un seul des facteurs
économiques en jeu. L’évaluation de la solidité théorique et empirique des modèles, des indicateurs et
des mesures à mené à l’identification de neuf domaines qui donnent lieu à des processus d’exclusion et
d’inclusion sociale : l’emploi et le travail, le revenu et les ressources économiques, les ressources
matérielles, l’éducation et les compétences, la santé, le logement, les ressources sociales, les ressources
communautaires et, enfin, la sécurité personnelle. Des indicateurs multiples ont été sélectionnés pour
chacun de ces domaines en fonction de leur fréquence d’utilisation et de leur robustesse. Des mesures
provenant d’ensembles canadiens de données déjà existants ont ensuite été identifiées, avec l’accent sur
celles qu’il était possible de ventiler par niveaux ou par d’autres facteurs de stratification de l’équité.
Mots clés : pauvreté, privation, exclusion sociale, inclusion sociale, cadres, indicateurs
Résumé Web : Les processus d’exclusion et d’inclusion sociale ont pris une place importance dans le
discours politique publique. Cet article porte un point de vue critique sur le développement conceptuel
de ces termes, des modèles et des cadres qui servent à les représenter et des indicateurs et mesures qui
pourraient servir à l’observer ou à mettre au point et évaluer des programmes et des politiques dans le
contexte canadien.
Acknowledgement:
This work was supported, in part, by a research contract from Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada. Opinions are those of the authors alone.
Remerciement
Ces travaux ont été rendus possibles en partie grâce à un contrat de recherche de Ressources
humaines et Développement des compétences Canada. Les opinions exprimées dans l’article sont
celles des auteurs et n'engagent que ces derniers.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 1
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
EX ECUTIVE SUMMAR Y
Key Points:
1. The concept of social exclusion overlaps with and contains within it concepts of poverty,
capability and deprivation: an accumulation of social disadvantage with respect to material
resources, social and economic participation and personal growth. It first arose in Europe in the
1970s in a context of radical economic restructuring and concerns over risks to social cohesion
and stability. Conventional measures of poverty and deprivation were considered inadequate to
capture the alienation, isolation or ‘exclusion’ from socially normative functioning that arose in
the wake of economic insecurities.
2. Social exclusion describes a state in which individuals are unable to participate in economic,
social, political and cultural activities at a level considered to be normatively acceptable. Social
exclusion focuses less on the state than on the processes leading to it, primarily a lack of:
material resources (social necessities)
income to acquire such necessities and/or state subsidies for their provision
access to formal labour markets
access to affordable/adequate housing
access to educational and health care opportunities
freedom from discrimination
opportunities for social participation (social networks)
power or voice to affect the policy choices of governments influencing all of the above
conditions
3. A review of existing social exclusion frameworks, indicators and measures led to identification
of nine principle domains that capture processes of social exclusion/inclusion:
employment and work
income and economic resources
material resources
education and skills
health
housing
social resources
community resources
personal safety
4. Multiple indicators for each of these domains were selected, based on frequency and robustness
of use. Measures from existing Canadian data sets were then identified for the indicators,
emphasizing those that could be disaggregated by level and other equity stratifiers. An index
based upon such measures was considered but not recommended at this time, although some
form of ‘bundling’ into report card format would be useful. The literature does not suggest that
‘thresholds’ exist for social exclusion/inclusion.
5. The next step in advancing work on social exclusion/inclusion measures depends on what use
is envisioned for the concepts:
2 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
For outcome monitoring (how socially inclusive is Canada becoming by minimizing
processes of social exclusion) (dynamic) (aggregate data) (disaggregated levels)
For policy monitoring (identification of policies associated with increasing or
decreasing social exclusion) For understanding social exclusionary processes
(intersectionality, breadth/depth, temporality of SE) (quantitative) (qualitative)
For policy and program planning (to identify what interventions would develop a more
inclusionary society) (disaggregated levels)
For evaluation of policy and programming effects on decreasing social exclusion
(disaggregated levels)
Report Summary
Our report begins with a brief operational definition of social exclusion drawn from later and more
detailed discussions: that, defined most succinctly, social exclusion describes a state in which
individuals are unable to participate in economic, social, political and (for some theorists) cultural
activities at a level considered to be normatively acceptable. Importantly, most emphasis on the
concept concerns processes that lead to social exclusion.
Methodologically, we adopted a systematic approach to synthesize evidence on exclusion and
inclusion indicators. Our search strategy incorporated elements of qualitative systematic reviews
which utilize findings from studies that do not necessarily meet the normal inclusion criteria for
quantitative studies. Specifically, our included studies were those that dealt with definitions,
frameworks and/or indicators of social exclusion and inclusion; or with policy-relevant discussions
important to our consideration in the selection of such indicators. Additional literature pertinent to
theorizing social exclusion and inclusion was also reviewed. This literature focused on concepts of
poverty, deprivation and capabilities.
Several social exclusion/inclusion frameworks were reviewed; but not all frameworks encountered
in the literature are described and assessed. Rather, we focus on those which offered the most
theoretically rich (or interesting) and empirically tested models. This review of frameworks led to a
revision of our initial conceptual model and the identification of nine key domains of social
exclusion/inclusion processes (point 3 above) for which indicator selection would be pursued.
We then turned our work to a detailed discussion of approaches to measurement, reviewing
international (UK, French, European-wide and Australian) experiences, before examining the
limited number of Canadian efforts. We also considered briefly a small number of novel, or outlier,
indicators that may have some relevance to the Canadian context.
The emphasis of our review was on indicator selection, and we describe in some detail the
processes used to develop our list of indicators relevant to Canada. We also discuss related issues of
indexing (which we do not favour at this time), balancing subjective/objective measures and
establishing thresholds (for which there is little evidence to warrant pursuing at this time). We
finally identify some of the gaps and research needs that remain, before we turn to our concluding
statement.
Appendices detail existing Canadian measures by the different domains and indicators identified
through our review, with some suggested measures that could form the basis for development of
policy or program relevant measures of social exclusion/inclusion.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 3
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
PO LICY RE SEARCH SUMMARY
Interest in social exclusion and its obverse (social inclusion) has been a central feature of social and
economic policy discourse in high-income countries for the past three decades. Several conceptual
models and frameworks have been developed to capture the complexity of the processes by which
individuals or groups are either systematically excluded from participation in society to the fullest
extent they desire, or progressively experience greater inclusion. Much of the early (and
continuing) policy attention has focused on mechanisms to increase labour market attachment
(employment). The social and economic benefits of such attachment are viewed as basic to the
variety of material and non-material resources considered necessary to avoid social exclusion.
More recent interest in social exclusion has been given to non-material (relational) facets of
inclusion, such as freedom from discrimination, feeling personally safe, being able to participate in
political processes.
Although there is much disagreement amongst writers on the concepts of social exclusion/inclusion
mean, there is emergent consensus that they imply that individuals (households and their
members) have:
access to material resources (including housing)
income to afford such material resources and engage in non-material activities (such as
vacation, socializing)
access to formal labour markets (partly as a means of income generation)
access to education and health care
freedom from discrimination (including victimization or lack of personal safety)
opportunities for social participation (including removal of barriers to such participation)
opportunities to give voice to the policy choices of governments affecting all of these
conditions
The adequacy of access, freedom and opportunities in what this report came to describe as domains
or processes of exclusion/inclusion remains relative, based upon what is considered sufficient in
each for normal social functioning. Most continental and Francophone Canadian literature on social
exclusion emphasized material and labour market attachment; other literature (primarily UK and
Australian, to a lesser and more abstract extent, Anglophone Canadian) underscored the
importance of non-material phenomena such as discrimination and political participation. There
was concern expressed in much of the literature (even that which emphasized employment as a key
feature of social inclusion) that exclusion was more than detachment from the formal labour
market. A few articles even cautioned that it was important to consider what kind of society policy
makers and program planners were attempting to make more inclusive; that wilful exclusion in
some instances could be seen as a rationale act of political voice. Almost all of the material we
reviewed highlighted that the multidimensionality of the concepts made them difficult to measure,
or even to find agreement on what it is that should be measured.
To move from theorizing to measurement, we undertook a careful review of recent frameworks
that had been developed to capture what researchers and/or policy analysts considered the
different domains or processes of exclusion/inclusion. There was considerable overlap amongst
domains and a reasonable degree of cross-referencing of frameworks. While some of these
frameworks were labeled social exclusion and others social inclusion, there was actually little
difference between them. The processes they identified either excluded or included by their
presence or absence, depending on how the domain was described. The exceptions were that the
4 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
inclusion literature gave greater emphasis to non-material social processes and to a values- or
advocacy-driven agenda of ensuring that people had what they needed to be ‘included’.
The review of frameworks led to our adaptation of domains and indicators in a revised conceptual
framework, and then to a review of indicators with which to populate it. Having created such a list,
we turned to the issue of indexing. Drawing from the literature we had reviewed, we argued that an
index would pose more methodological and policy questions than a clustering of indicators – a
hierarchic list – might more clearly and easily address. We also called for a balance of objective and
subjective measures, and discussed the importance of qualitative approaches (studies) that would
provide in-depth understandings of how people experienced processes of exclusion/inclusion. We
discussed the few efforts to establish thresholds for some of the commonly identified domains,
noting that none offered guidance for purposes of establishing such thresholds at this time.
We finally highlighted a number of specific measures in existing Canadian those data bases that
could be used to map trends, and recommend that HRSDC consider testing these measures by doing
so. With trend analyses in hand, the suite of measures we have suggested could be taken forward to
a broader group of interested stakeholders in a form of face validation; always bearing in mind that
the idea of social exclusion/inclusion is a powerful one, but one that attains its power and its
meaning by dint of how people choose to construct it.
In moving forward in development of measures for social exclusion/inclusion, a clear identification
of the purposes for such measures needs to be articulated. Amongst the purposes for consideration
are:
For outcome monitoring (how socially inclusive is Canada becoming by minimizing
processes of social exclusion)
For policy monitoring (identification of policies associated with increasing or
decreasing social exclusion)
For understanding social exclusionary processes (intersectionality, breadth/depth,
temporality of SE)
For policy and program planning (to identify what interventions would develop a more
inclusionary society)
For evaluation of policy and programming effects on decreasing social exclusion
KE Y FINDI NGS
Social exclusion describes processes by which people (individuals, groups) are prevented from
participating in social and economic activities to the fullest extent they desire. Efforts to theorize,
model and measure these processes represent an awareness that a meaningful life in any society,
while embedded in economic and employment security, extends to a larger set of social dimensions
or domains; and that even the economic bedrock is more than simply income poverty, whether
considered in absolute or relative terms. A review of models, indicators and measures for their
theoretical and empirical robustness led to identification of nine domains that capture processes of
social exclusion/inclusion: employment and work, income and economic resources, material
resources, education and skills, health, housing, social resources, community resources, and
personal safety. Multiple indicators for each of these domains were selected, based on frequency
and robustness of use. Measures from existing Canadian data sets were then identified,
emphasizing those that could be disaggregated by level and other equity stratifiers.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 5
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction......................…………………………………………………………………………………………..7
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives and research questions
1.3 Overview of paper
1.4 Operational definition of social exclusion
2. Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
2.1 Approach to evidence review
2.2 Methods for selecting appropriate literature
2.3 Selection of databases
2.4 Data abstraction and synthesis
2.5 Domain and indicators selection strategy
3. Concepts, approaches and frameworks....................…………………………………………….……14
3.1 Poverty and deprivation: the foundations of social exclusion
3.2 Social exclusion
3.3 Social inclusion
3.4 Summarizing the terrain: an operational definition of social exclusion
3.5 Towards a conceptual framework
4. Approaches to measuring social exclusion…………………………………………………………… 34
4.1 International experiences
4.2 Canadian experiences
4.3 Novel indicators
5. Developing exclusion and inclusion indicators.........…………………………………….…………………… 54
5.1 Strategies to selecting domains and indicators
5.2 Process of selecting domains and indicators
5.3 To index or not to index
5.4 Balance of objective and subjective measures
5.5 Similar projects undertaken by others in Canada
6. Gaps and priorities………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65
6.1 Gaps in measurement and research needs
6.2 Priority areas for development
6.3 Need of developing multidimensional analytical framework
7. Summary and conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………69
8. References and bibliography..……………………………………………………………………………… ..72
9. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..88
Appendix A: Domains and Indicators Found in Databases
Appendix B: Description of Canadian Databases
Appendix C: Indicators by Data Sources
Appendix D: Indicators and Measures by Source and Level of Disaggregation
6 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Figures
Figure 1: Flow chart of the identification and selection of studies
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of Social Exclusion (Inclusion)
Tables
Table 1. Selection of common, theoretically robust domains and indicators
Table 2. Selection of indicators used in research and policy, evaluated, and relevant to Canada
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 7
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Social exclusion, and its obverse, social inclusion, began to surface in policy discourse in the
1970s in Europe, partly in response to massive economic restructuring that began to affect
labour markets, social policies, poverty and migration flows; all of which arose in the
context of increasing global economic integration. The concern was that, with the scale of
such restructuring, new risks to social cohesion and stability might arise; and that these
risks extended beyond previous concerns with poverty and deprivation. Social exclusion
was coined to describe groups whose marginalization from mainstream society comprised
many different dimensions, although employment (labour market attachment) and poverty
retained a central place in theorizing and subsequent measurement. The continental
concern with the multidimensionality of what was now being labelled as ‘social exclusion’
spread to other high-income nations: the UK and Australia in particular, and later to
Canada. With it came efforts to consider how such excluded groups (and the processes by
which they became excluded) could be better integrated (included) in normatively
accepted standards of social, economic, political and cultural activities. Successful insertion
into these activities was given the moniker of ‘social inclusion,’ although there is little clear
distinction between the two concepts (exclusion and inclusion) apart from one
representing an undesired state and the other its desired reversal. Fundamentally, what
efforts to theorize, model and measure these social phenomena represent is an awareness
that a meaningful life in any society, while embedded in economic and employment
security, extends to a larger set of social dimensions or domains; and that even the
economic bedrock is more than simply income poverty, whether considered in absolute or
relative terms.
Although no consensus over exactly what social exclusion/inclusion means, or how it can
best be measured, exists, several international organizations and some federal and
provincial departments in Canada have been working to incorporate some idea of social
exclusion within their policy development processes. Central to policy development and
implementation is the need for some form of reasonably rigorous and consistent
measurement related to the outcomes of interest to the policy-planners and decision-
makers. Although Canada has witnessed a number of efforts to theorize or describe social
exclusion/inclusion, it has yet to initiate national-level efforts to find theoretically robust
measures for them. Our existing work detailed in this report is an effort to begin to fill
some of this measurement gap.
A note on terminology:
This paper refers variously to exclusion, social exclusion, inclusion, social inclusion and
social exclusion/inclusion. In all instances, unless explicitly stated otherwise, we are
referring to processes by which individual and groups experience some presence or
absence of social exclusion. We also refer somewhat interchangeably to indicators and
8 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
measures, since these are also used interchangeably in the literature we review. These are
not always the same, however, since an indicator could be comprised of multiple measures;
and different measures could be used to represent the same indicator. An indicator, in
other words, is something that illustrates a condition; but that condition could be measured
in a number of different ways.
1.2 Objectives and research questions
The objectives of this project, then, are to provide a critical review of indicators of social
exclusion and inclusion, and to assess these for their relevancy to Canada and to the role of
HRSDC. To address these objectives, we have addressed the following questions pertinent
to measurement of social exclusion and inclusion (drawing from our proposal and the
Statement of Work):
What are the key features (in terms of description, analysis, evaluation) of different
sets of indicators?
What approach could (or should) be used to construct an index?
What is an appropriate balance between objective and subjective indicators?
Should indicators be individual- or community-level, or both; and represent a state
or processes?
What approach could be used to identify thresholds to distinguish those who are
excluded from those who are included?
Which models, frameworks or sets of indicators would be the most relevant to the
Canadian context?
What are the data considerations that would need to be taken into account?
What would be required to support such a set of indicators?
What gaps in important indicators exist?
1.3 Overview of paper
The report begins with a brief operational definition of social exclusion drawn from later
and more detailed discussions. It then describes the literature search and indicator
selection methods used in the study (Section 2). A large section (Section 3) discusses key
concepts and frameworks associated with social exclusion, including poverty, deprivation,
social exclusion, economic exclusion and social inclusion. Not all frameworks encountered
in the literature review are described and assessed, but those which offered the most
theoretically rich (or interesting) and empirically tested models. We conclude this portion
of the paper with a re-visiting of the conceptual framework with which we began this
study. The next section (Section 4) discusses approaches to measurement, reviewing
international (UK, French, European-wide and Australian) experiences, before turning to
Canadian efforts. It concludes with a brief description of novel, or outlier, indicators that
may have some relevance to the Canadian context. Section 5 focuses on indicator selection,
describing in some detail the processes used to develop our list of indicators relevant to
Canada. This section also discusses related issues of indexing, balancing
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 9
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
subjective/objective measures and establishing thresholds. Our final section (Section 6)
identifies some of the gaps and research needs that remain, before we turn to our
concluding statement (Section 7).
1.4 Operational definition of social exclusion
Section 3.4 later in our paper outlines an operational definition of social exclusion, based
upon a critical review of literature on the concept, and two of its foundational components
(poverty and deprivation). We summarize this definition here as an anchor for the reader.
We further note that, as discussed later, social inclusion is generally defined only in relation
to social exclusion. This allows the latter concept to function for both: people are excluded
through processes of exclusion or, through the reversal of these processes, experience
inclusion. Depending on the sources cited, however, we sometimes refer to social exclusion
and social inclusion separately; or as entwined (‘social exclusion/inclusion’).
Defined most succinctly, social exclusion describes a state in which individuals are unable
to participate in economic, social, political and (for some theorists) cultural activities at a
level considered to be normatively acceptable. Importantly, the use of this concept is
concerned less with the state of social exclusion than with the processes that lead to it.1
These processes include (for social exclusion, a lack; for social inclusion, a presence) of:
material resources (social necessities)
income to acquire such necessities and/or state subsidies for their provision
access to formal labour markets
access to affordable/adequate housing
access to educational and health care opportunities
freedom from discrimination
opportunities for social participation (social networks)
power or voice to affect the policy choices of governments influencing all of the
above conditions
Social exclusion can manifest in at least three ways: breadth (large population affected on
one or a few dimensions), concentration (geographic areas affected by multiple
dimensions) and depth (individuals or groups affected by multiple dimensions) (Miliband,
2006).
1 Given the multi-dimensionality of social exclusion discussed later in this report, determining what
a state is and what is a process can be somewhat arbitrary. Poverty is a state; in most definitions
and in most frameworks and measures it represents a condition of social exclusion. But it is also a
process; poverty prevents people from accessing resources or participating in social activities, the
absence or limitation of which constitute other conditions of social exclusion.
10 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
2. Methods
2.1 Approach to evidence review
We adopted a systematic approach to synthesize evidence on exclusion and inclusion
indicators. The major strength of this approach is that it minimizes bias by identifying and
rejecting studies based on specific criteria and a weighting approach to the quality of the
evidence. It further helps to identify the gaps in research and to generate new foci for
study. Our review approach included: developing and refining the approach and review
questions; searching efficiently for evidence; synthesizing selected evidence; and adapting
findings to the Canadian context. Unlike conventional systematic reviews that aim to
provide answers to questions from a relatively narrow range of quality assessed studies,
however, our approach sought wider research evidence in order to ensure
comprehensiveness in our assessment of potential indicators. Our search strategy
incorporated elements of qualitative systematic reviews which utilize findings from studies
that do not necessarily meet the normal inclusion criteria for quantitative studies.
Specifically, our included studies were those that dealt with definitions, frameworks
and/or indicators of social exclusion and inclusion; or with policy-relevant discussions
important to our consideration in the selection of such indicators. Additional literature
pertinent to two concepts (poverty and deprivation) important to theorizing social
exclusion was also reviewed.
2.2 Methods for selecting appropriate literature
In the proposal development stage, we searched a few databases and conducted a scoping
review of the literature to determine the feasibility of the project. We developed a search
strategy and located a large number of studies that address some of the key research
questions raised by this contract. Our search strategy was refined based on key concepts
found in the scoping review, with a focus on conceptual frameworks, commonly-identified
domains and indicators associated with those domains. The features of the search strategy
were:
1. selecting criteria based on specific research questions to ensure identifying relevant
studies
2. applying the criteria to all citations to identify studies that ‘best fit’ with the
research questions and
3. choosing a timeframe for inclusion of studies in the review (1991-2010)
2.3 Selection of databases
Our search strategy included a careful review of electronic databases, reference lists, hand-
searching of key journals and a snowball sampling of key web-sites using internet search
techniques. The searches for relevant literature were undertaken in January 2011 at the
Main Library of the University of Ottawa. The primary electronic databases English
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 11
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
language citations were ‘ISI Web of Science’, ‘Scopus’ and ‘Scholars Portal Search.’ Sociofile,
a potentially useful database, was not available to us. The French databases used were
INIST, CNRS and the Francis. In addition, other sources such as Google Scholar were also
searched.
The citation titles included original articles (published in such journals as Social Indicators,
Social Indicators Research, and Journal of Social Policy), review papers, book chapters and
grey literature (such as unpublished research reports, commissioned reports and
evaluation studies). The process of identification and screening of citations is shown in the
flow chart (Figure 1). A total of 139 articles and reports specific to social exclusion and
inclusion were finally selected for this review.
2.4 Data abstraction and synthesis
Basic characteristics of all selected studies were summarized in a data abstraction form.
The data were organized, documented, reviewed and analysed thematically to respond to
the review questions. The diversity of studies identified through the search strategy
precluded use of a formal appraisal module. All included empirical studies were chosen on
the basis of their clarity of purpose, appropriateness of methods, quality of analysis, and
relevance to the research questions that framed the review.
A number of other articles and commentaries dealing with theoretical or conceptual
aspects of social exclusion/inclusion (but without indicators) were also reviewed in our
work, but in a non-systematic way and primarily for assisting in the refinement of
definitions of the two key and related concepts.
12 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Figure 1: Flow chart of the identification and selection of studies
218 (58 French) citation titles
retained for the next step
77 ineligible citations excluded on the
basis of title (36 French)
295 potentially relevant citations identified
and screened for retrieval (94 French)
206 (51 French) abstracts or
executive summaries of studies
retrieved
155 (43 French) full-text
articles read for
eligibility
141 (39 French) articles
or reports retained
160 (41 French) potentially
appropriate studies found
for review
51 (8 French) abstracts or
executive summaries
excluded
14 (4 French)
full-text articles
excluded
21 (8 French) studies
excluded as results
presented were not relevant
or of poor quality
19 (2 French)
additional articles
identified
Total 139 (33 French)
articles included for final
review
12 (7 French) citation titles
excluded for
duplication/ineligibility
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 13
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
2.5 Domain and indicators selection strategy
We adopted a sequential tiered (step-wise) process to develop a robust set of domains and
indicators of social and economic exclusion and inclusion as follows:
Review of included studies to determine the most common domains (rationale:
emergent consensus on inclusion and exclusion)
Review of the most common domains for their theoretical rigour/robustness (rationale:
most analytically useful domains)
Review of the most common and theoretically rigorous domains by those that also
identified indicators (rationale: some domains may be important theoretically but not
have indicators and the emphasis of this study is on indicators)
Review of the most common and theoretically rigorous domains with identified
indicators that have been used in research or policy (rationale: overly complex or naively
simplistic measures are unlikely to be used or useful; therefore those that have been
tested are likely to be more feasible for adoption in Canada)
Review of the most common and theoretically rigorous domains with identified
indicators used in research or policy where the use has been evaluated or assessed,
leading to ‘first cut’ model for Canada (rationale: if used and evaluated, less feasible
domains and indicators will have been identified and altered or deleted)
Identification of Canadian data sets (with a draft data dictionary) of identical or similar
indicators
These processes guided our analytical work and finalization of the domains and indicators.
14 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
3. Concepts, approaches and frameworks
3.1 Poverty and deprivation: the foundations of social exclusion
As with many social science constructs, there is no singularly accepted definition of social
exclusion or inclusion, which leads, in turn, to a similar lack of consistency in the proxy
indicators to measure these qualities. Social exclusion itself is a concept partly derived
from, and overlapping with, several other constructs, notably poverty and deprivation. As
Saunders et al (2008) argue, all three constructs variously express ‘social disadvantage’
with respect to access to resources, participation in social and economic activities and
limited opportunities for personal growth. In this Section we review briefly the major
definitional and measurement issues associated with poverty and deprivation as two of the
foundational concepts underpinning the more recently coined concept of social exclusion.
We then turn to a discussion of social exclusion and social inclusion, concluding with
summary of the key and commonly encountered qualities of both. This is followed by a
brief review of a conceptual framework in which these qualities are located; which is a
useful starting point for the review of indicators that constitutes Section 4.
3.1.1 Poverty
Traditionally, poverty has been considered as the lack of a minimum income necessary to
fulfill basic human needs (Masters & Wickstrom, 2004; Saunders, et al., 2008). This
subjective notion of ‘fulfilling needs’ led to development of national poverty lines based
upon the price of goods and services. The World Bank attempted to standardize poverty
measures globally by establishing its ‘dollar a day’ and ‘two dollars a day’ poverty rates,
calculated using consumption of a basic package of goods and services adjusted for
different countries’ purchasing power parity. Although these measures have been revised
several times, leading to considerable debate over their accuracy and policy utility
(Ravallion, et al. 2008; Deaton, 2010), they remain the ‘global’ poverty standard used by
most United Nations agencies, aid organizations and development economists. Dollar-a-day
poverty describes subsistence consumption at a level that is minimally life-supporting and
unsustainable over a longer-term; two-dollar-a-day poverty describes consumption that
can sustain life by accommodating other essential basic needs such as land, agricultural
tools, and some access to education and health care; although it remains at a level
associated with comparatively low life expectancies and high infant and maternal mortality
rates. There has also been an effort to estimate an ‘ethical poverty line.’ This line was
established by working backwards from countries with an average life expectancy at birth
of 74 years (considered an ethical minimum) to the average level of consumption
associated with such a life expectancy (which was estimated to be a minimum of $2.70/day
in consumption in 1999 (Edward, 2006); since adjusted to $3/day in 2006). While the
World Bank poverty lines remain the global comparative standards, many nations choose
their own methods to calculate poverty lines, which are not always consistent with those
used by the World Bank.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 15
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Poverty lines, once selected, are used in two principal ways: to calculate incidence (such as
the headcount ratio which measures the proportion of households living below a poverty
line) and depth (such as the income gap ratio which measures the mean distance of
incomes of poor households from the poverty line; or the poverty gap ratio, which
measures the amount of income needed to lift poor households to the poverty line, as a
proportion of the poverty line). What all of these measurement approaches share is a
concept of poverty based on some minimum level of income, whether calculated in
monetary value or in monetized estimates of the goods and services people consume to
meet their basic needs.
Such ‘absolute’ measures of poverty inform social exclusion by way of a presumption that
people living at or below such poverty lines lack the basic material resources required for
any meaningful form of social participation.2 Apart from the ethical poverty line, however,
this level of poverty is fairly extreme and represents a form more commonly associated
with poor groups in low-income (e.g. sub-Saharan African) and lower-middle-income (e.g.
India) countries than with poor groups in high-income countries such as Canada. This
poverty concept nonetheless applies to Canada with respect to households living in what
some researchers describe as ‘deep poverty,’ where income levels are at 50 per cent or less
of Canada’s low-income cut-off (a measure described in the next paragraph) and are
considered inadequate to meet even basic needs of food, shelter and clothing (Kerr &
Beaujot, 2001).3
Townsend (1979) was early to criticize this ‘absolute’ approach to poverty and its
measurement. He, and others since, argued for a concept of ‘relative poverty’ based less on
minimal needs for survival and more on needs conditioned by societal expectations – that
is, on what people require to participate fully in society (Nunes, 2008, Eurostat 2010). This
concept of poverty is actually reasonably old even in liberal economic thought, having been
famously proposed by Adam Smith in his statement that “a creditable day-labourer would
be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed
to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty” (cited in Ravallion 2011). As Ravallion (2011)
points out, this passage implies that “certain socially-specific expenditures are essential for
social inclusion, on top of basic needs for nutrition and physical survival” and that “the way
this idea is implemented in practice is to set a ‘relative poverty line’ that is a constant
2 Terminology becomes difficult when writing about these concepts, since they are often used
interchangeably. Instead of ‘social participation’ we could easily state ‘social inclusion.’ Social
participation, however, is one of the terms most frequently used to describe social exclusion, e.g.
Eurostat (2010:7): “Social exclusion relates to being unable to enjoy levels of participation that
most of society takes for granted.”
3 The right-wing Fraser Institute think tank maintains that only this measure of poverty should be
used when counting Canada’s poor, and developed one for Canada (the Sarlo measure) which is one
of the many income-related measures incorporated in the Quebec Handbook on Poverty and
Socioeconomic Inequalities in Quebec (MESS, 2006), discussed later in this report.
16 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
proportion of average income for the country.” Relative poverty introduces the idea that it
is not enough simply to be able to live physically; but one is poor if one lacks in the
resources required to engage in some meaningful ways in society and its sundry activities
(social, economic, political, cultural and recreational).4 Canada’s use of a low-income cut-off
(LICO) captures this relative dimension5; as do poverty lines in most high-income
countries, in contrast to the absolute poverty lines still in use in most developing countries.
The LICO is established by calculating the portion of gross family income spent on three
essential goods: food, shelter and clothing. Originally set at 70 per cent in 1961 (thus
allowing for 30 per cent pre-tax of household income to be reserved for expenditures
beyond the basics of food, shelter and clothing), it has since been adjusted for family size
and rural/urban residence and moved downwards to a cut-off line now only a few
percentage points above 50 per cent. Lowering the threshold reflects average rising living
standards in Canada, and the rising costs associated with maintaining a reasonable level of
social participation. It is now defined simply where families spend 20 percentage points
more of their income than the Canadian average on food, shelter and clothing (Statistics
Canada, 1999).
A relative concept of poverty informs an understanding of social exclusion by expanding
the range of goods and services that members of a household should be able to access in
order to avoid social exclusion (or in Ravallion’s terms, to experience social inclusion).
Although the Canadian LICO does not enumerate what these other goods and services
might be, its upwards adjustment of the income that should be available to households
after food, shelter and clothing implies the importance of their acquisition.
While relative poverty is an improvement over absolute poverty, it still relies upon
indicators of income. Sen (1985), in his capability approach to poverty measurement,
argued that poverty is a function of the absence of capability; while capability “is a set of
vectors of functioning, reflecting the person’s freedom to lead one type of life or another…
to choose from possible livings. It is concerned with the real opportunity that we have to
accomplish what we value” (Alkire 2002:6, cited in Nunes, 2008, emphasis in original). Sen
considered other non-income indicators such as life expectancy, literacy and infant
mortality to be important proxies for capabilities (at least at an aggregate level) and more
useful than income alone to identify poor from non-poor groups or countries. Sen proposed
that indicators of these other characteristics should be aggregated into a more complex
poverty measure (Nunes, 2008). This approach became the basis of the Human
Development Index (HDI) released in 1990 and still issued annually by the United Nations
4 Sen (2000) argues the origin of relative poverty as the ability to function socially according to
some accepted or normative standards can be traced as far back as Aristotle.
5 While Statistics Canada does not regard the LICO as a poverty line, the LICO is generally regarded
by many academics and civil society groups as a poverty measure; and is used as such in, for
example, the set of measures for social exclusion developed by the Quebec government, discussed
later in this report.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 17
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Development Program (UNDP). The HDI combines data on health, education and living
standards (this last dimension being the only income indicator using log GDP/capita) to
measure what people need to exercise choice in the type of life they would like to lead. The
capability approach from which the HDI arose has since been considerably elaborated
(Ranis et al. 2007), although with little development of, or agreement on, simple measures
to capture its evolving theoretical complexity.
The capability approach is argued as building a bridge between absolute and relative
concepts of poverty. It is absolute in identifying the capabilities or functionings that people
should experience, but relative in the income or resources that may be required for such
capabilities, these latter being derived from social contexts or norms which differ by place
and over time. It also gave rise to interest in the development of multidimensional
approaches to poverty measurement. Focusing on the inability to reach subsistence living,
for example, Bourguignon and Chakravatry (2003) proposed an approach based on
functioning failures in terms of shortfalls from minimally acceptable levels in a variety of
both monetary and non-monetary attributes (Nunes, 2008). The UNDP has attempted to
create a metric for these attributes, adding additional weighted measures to the three key
components of its HDI. The new multidimensional poverty index (MPI) is more applicable
to low- and middle-income country settings, but does provide an example of how poverty
concepts in recent years have become more elaborate.6
The key contribution the capability (or multidimensional poverty) approach makes to an
understanding of social exclusion is that it de-couples meaningful social participation (or in
broader conceptual terms, the notion of ‘development’) from a purely or primarily
economic growth/income growth model. The capability approach actually arose, in part, as
a response to perceived weaknesses in the gross domestic product (GDP) measure that had
come to dominate policy debates over how well countries were doing in providing for the
general welfare of their citizens. It was also intended to challenge market-fundamentalist
tenets of what came to be known as the Washington Consensus, which were presumed
6 The measures used in the MPI and their weightings are given below:
1. Education (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)
Years of Schooling: deprived if no household member has completed five years of schooling
School Attendance: deprived if any school attending school in years 1 to 8
2. Health (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/6)
Child Mortality: deprived if any child has died in the family
Nutrition: deprived if any adult or child for whom there is nutritional information is malnourished
3. Standard of Living (each indicator is weighted equally at 1/18)
Electricity: deprived if the household has no electricity
Drinking Water: deprived if the household does not have access to clean drinking water or clean
water is more than a 30 minute walk from home
Sanitation: deprived if they do not have adequate sanitation or if their toilet is shared
Flooring: deprived if the household has a dirt, sand or dung floor
Cooking Fuel: deprived if the household cooks with wood, charcoal or dung
Assets: deprived if the household does not own more than one of: radio, TV, telephone, bike,
motorbike, or refrigerator and does not own a car or tractor (OPHI & UNDP, 2010)
18 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
necessary to a continual growth in GDP/capita. Criticisms of the dominance of the GDP as a
measure of a country’s ‘progress’ or ‘well-being’ continue (as do critiques of many of the
tenets of the Washington Consensus itself, see Labonté, et al., 2010) with various national
and international efforts underway to create broad-based measures more representative of
the many domains of people’s lives that provide them with meaning and protect their social
and environmental living conditions (Stiglitz, et al., 2010a; 2010b).7
3.1.2 Deprivation
Deprivation emerged as a major theme within the poverty literature in the late 1960s
(Yitzhaki 1979). The concept shares much in common with poverty. Hallerod (1996), for
example, defined deprivation as an undesired state that arises when people are unable to
access necessary goods and services due to a lack of resources, a conceptualization very
similar to that of both absolute and relative poverty (depending on where one draws a line
under ‘necessary’). In his study of poverty in UK, as another example, Townsend
conceptualized poverty as relative deprivation, a condition that exists when people lack or
are denied resources to participate in social and economic activities in the society in which
they live (Bailey et al. 2004).
Saunders et al (2008) elaborate deprivation more usefully by describing it as an “enforced
lack of socially perceived essentials” (Saunders, et al., 2008:175). There are two important
aspects to this short definition. First, unlike absolute poverty and even more than relative
poverty, it introduces a high level of normative valuation, since what is a ‘socially perceived
essential’ is contingent and subject to ethical as well as economic or even normative
reasoning. Deprivation, like multidimensional poverty, can be multiple, when people lack
access to sufficient levels of several attributes important to social participation, such as
income, housing, healthcare and education. Second, following from Saunders et al.’s
definition, it is an enforced state; that is, its origins can be traced directly to certain political,
economic or policy choices made by governments. While emerging from the poverty
literature, there are important conceptual differences between deprivation and poverty.
7 The 2010 Commission chaired by Stiglitz identified 8 dimensions of what was called ‘well-being’:
material living standards (income, consumption and wealth), health, education, personal activities
including work (an interesting de-emphasis on labour market attachment), political voice and
governance, social connection and relationships, environment (present and future conditions) and
insecurity (both economic and physical). Many of these are similar to those encountered in
theorizing and frameworks of social exclusion (absence)/inclusion (presence). The unique
dimension, not explored in our paper, concerns the environmental aspects of one’s living
conditions, and is a direct response to the inability of GDP measures to capture negative
environmental externalities of economic activity. Although the Commission’s work was directed
towards alternative indicators to the GDP, it did not conclude with any fixed set of measures but
relied upon argument for why certain types of measures would be needed.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 19
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
For example, a person may be poor in terms of income but not deprived in terms of, for
example, housing, healthcare, education or transportation, to the extent these are publicly
subsidized/provided. In this respect deprivation can be considered the opposite of
capability, since the capability approach similarly allows for public provision rather than
simply market purchase of such ‘socially perceived essentials’. Conversely, a person could
experience deprivation in multiple dimensions while not being poor, such as discrimination
against certain minority groups or women (Saunders et al. 2007).
3.2 Social Exclusion
Social exclusion is about income but it is about more. It is about prospects and
networks and life-chances. It’s a very modern problem, and one that is more
harmful to the individual, more damaging to self-esteem, more corrosive for society
as a whole, more likely to be passed down from generation to generation, than
material poverty (British PM Tony Blair, quoted in Fairclough, 2000).
Social exclusion extends beyond poverty and deprivation concepts by incorporating a
broader understanding of social processes and their consequences (Bailey et al., 2004).
Both poverty and deprivation are components of social exclusion but, as former British PM
Tony Blair argued, social exclusion ‘is much more’. Berger-Schmitt and Noll (2000), for
example, point out that poverty can be both a cause and a consequence of social exclusion.
But poverty is only one possible cause or consequence. As with deprivation, one can be
wealthy (not poor) and still experience social exclusion, as has been the case with
homosexuals in many of the world’s countries (Estivill, 2003). Social exclusion, although
sharing much in common with Townsend’s concept of relative deprivation, differs in the
emphasis it places on non-material aspects, from ‘prospects and networks’ (which work to
reduce exclusion) to prejudice and discrimination (which work to increase it) (Saunders &
Wong, 2009).
Social exclusion first arose in research and policy discourse in France in the early 1970s as
part of the suite of concepts, social and economic exclusion and inclusion. These concepts
were used to explain the effects of extreme economic restructuring on social solidarity
beyond what poverty and deprivation alone could describe; and to assist in developing
policies to promote social cohesion (social inclusion) within the European Union (Aasland
and Flotten, 2000; Gore and Figueiredo, 1997; Rawal, 2008)8. Rene Lenoir in 1974 was the
first to coin the term as a way to define the condition of a large portion of the population
8 Social cohesion is often seen as the broader population outcome of social inclusion; that is, it
represents the greater social harmony or solidarity that arises when all (or at least most) people
feel socially included. Social inclusion is what individuals/groups experience; social cohesion is a
society measure, although both concepts share a concern with the policies or processes that create
a strong sense of belonging and equal opportunities for social participation amongst members of a
population (a city, a region, a nation). The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the
literature.
20 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
that included the poor, handicapped, vulnerable, aged, abused children, substance abusers
and other marginalized groups or ‘social misfits’ (de Haan, 1999; Sen, 2000). Subsequently,
the term was used to describe more heterogeneous collections of individuals (Silver, 1994;
Lessof & Jowell, 2000), albeit still defining social exclusion by dint of the groups presumed
by some metric to be excluded. Later still, a broader conceptualization was proposed to
incorporate "the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the
integration of a person in society" (Walker, 1997, cited in Lessof & Jowell, 2000:5) – that is,
the social processes of exclusion.
There are no standardized or simple definitions of social exclusion. Broadly, it has been
defined as processes that socially segment groups and individuals in ways that prevent
them from participating in the normative activities of society (Power & Wilson, 2000). In
developing a theoretical framework of social exclusion, Silver (1994) usefully distinguished
between three paradigms, each providing an explanation of the multiple forms of
economic, social, political and cultural disadvantage that preclude such participation: the
solidarity paradigm which considers exclusion as a break in social bonds between the
individual and society and disintegration of solidarity, common values and norms, urging
some form of moral re-integration of the excluded; the specialization paradigm which views
exclusion as an outcome of discrimination, and the lack of freedom to participate in social
exchange, giving rise to a focus on skills development, labour market attachment, and the
strengthening of social networks and social capital; and the monopoly paradigm which
more critically regards exclusion as fundamental inequality and restriction in access to
goods and services for those other than the dominant groups, resolved through the
(sometimes forceful) exercise of citizenship rights (Silver, 1994). All three paradigms can
be seen in the social exclusion definition released by the European Commission in 2001
(which somewhat unhelpfully conflates social exclusion and poverty):
Poverty and social exclusion refer to when people are prevented from participating
fully in economic, social and civil life and/or when their access to income and other
resources (personal, family, social and cultural) is so inadequate as to exclude them
from enjoying a standard of living and quality of life that is regarded as acceptable
by the society in which they live. In such situations people often are unable to fully
access their fundamental rights (European Commission DJR 2001:11).
Introducing quality of life, with its own rich and theoretically contested literature, further
muddies the conceptual water, although the pursuit of a quality life does resonate with
much of the writing on social exclusion and inclusion, and with how Sen (2009:16)
summed his capability approach (to have “a life one has reason to value”).
Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (1999), by way of contrast, adopted a simpler outcome
based approach to defining social exclusion, using population comparisons in consumption,
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 21
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
production, savings, political engagement and social activities9. These and similar
definitions emphasize the material (and often income-related) facets of social exclusion, or
those specific forms of activity (such as political engagement) arising from a lack of a
reasonable quota of resources. Taken to a logical extreme, this approach to defining social
exclusion can reduce to economic integration and labour market attachment, albeit
justified with the argument that the economic dimensions of exclusion fundamentally
condition its social, political and cultural attributes. (Similar arguments have been made
about the neoliberal economic drivers of contemporary globalization, which provided the
context for the ‘extreme economic restructuring’ that gave rise to the idea of social
exclusion in the 1970s; see Labonté, et al. 2010.)
Other writers have given equal or greater emphasis to the relational aspects of social
exclusion, linking exclusion to “inadequate social participation, lack of social integration
and lack of power” (Room, 1995:5). As the final report of the Social Exclusion Knowledge
Network of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health emphasized, there is a
difference between social exclusion as a “state experienced by particular groups (common
in policy discourse) as opposed to the relational approach … [in which] exclusion is viewed
as a dynamic, multi-dimensional process driven by unequal power relations” (Popay, et al.,
2008:7). The outcomes of such a process are unequal resources, reduced capabilities and
fewer claims on human rights, which leads to inequalities in access to entitled services
among groups and populations.
Still others describe social exclusion as a psychosocial phenomenon. Resonant with the
Durkheim’s notion of anomie, social exclusion is seen, in part, as a “process of becoming
detached from the moral order” (Cushing, 2003:9) ; or as “a phenomenon of alienation and
distance from society” (PHAC, 2001:2) There is a hint of coercion in the notion of a moral
order (whose moral order? that of more dominant social groups?) although the bedrock of
the relational approach is the focus on social participation and the avoidance of the
“isolation of individuals and groups from the mainstream of opportunities society has to
offer” (Vleminckx & Berghman 1995:46). As Sen (2000:6) puts it, social exclusion (unlike
poverty or deprivation) gives “a central role to relational connections.”
Levitas (1998, 2005) helpfully summarizes these different approaches to social exclusion,
by identifying three threads in theorizing and policy discourse on the concept that parallel
the three paradigm model developed by Silver (1994). She labeled these MUD (moral
underclass discourse; Silver’s solidarity paradigm), SID (social integrationist approach;
Silver’s specialization paradigm) and RED (the redistributive model; Silver’s monopoly
paradigm), noting that the SID approach has dominated European and UK policy
discussions on social exclusion.
9 Like social capital before it, much of the writing on social exclusion has implied its definition more
by choice of available data by which to measure it, than by socially theorizing its qualities.
22 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
3.2.1 Economic exclusion
The dominance of the SID approach draws attention to ‘economic exclusion,’ a term that is
frequently used synonymously with social exclusion. After reviewing the development of
the European concept of social exclusion, Dertwinkel (2008: 4) argues that the “meaning of
social exclusion has always been an economic and less a political or cultural one.” He
considers economic exclusion as a state of “non-participation in or blocked access to the
labor market, public services, finance, housing, educational and health sector, among other
possibilities.”10 The Confédération des syndicats nationaux (1995) similarly gives economic
exclusion a superordinate status, noting that “economic exclusion leads to social exclusion,
loss of identity, lack of social recognition and moral misery. The excluded, bereft of human
dignity... are barred from participating in decisions made in their neighborhood, their city
or town, their region, their country” (translated and cited in Jenson, 1998:24).
The emphasis on labour market attachment is most often encountered in European writing
on social exclusion, even when other dimensions of exclusion are considered. Bhalla and
Lapeyre (2004), for example, identify three main forms of exclusion: economic
(employment and income), social (the relationships that arise through employment) and
political (reduced rights for women or minorities, which similarly reflects poorer
employment opportunities or income). Whatever other forms of exclusion matter, a
foothold in the labour market seems to be the fundamental default. As a result of this
emphasis, policy interventions around social exclusion often devolve to those presumed to
increase employment opportunities (Labonté, 2003). But such opportunities only arise in
one of three employment sectors: public, private or informal. An abundance of research
evidence suggests that the informal sector is insecure, the private sector increasingly so
and highly unequal in its allocation of income benefits, and the public sector (even in 2003)
subject to increasing pressure to reduce positions or salaries (Labonté, et al., 2010):
It is naïve, then, to claim, as some have, “policies to combat social exclusion offer the
hope of increasing employment opportunities and reducing poverty” (Guildford,
2000:16). … Only ‘strong state’ regulatory and redistributive policies might re-
allocate employment opportunities in some more durably inclusive way (Labonté,
2003:101).
It should be acknowledged that some of the European, and particularly French, writing on
economic exclusion emphasize attachment to the formal labour market (vs. the informal
market) as the more likely generator of income adequacy (Figueiredo, et al, 1995). Much of
Europe has a stronger history of policy supports to formal labour markets than do the more
liberal market economies, such as the UK, the USA and Canada, where informalization has
10 Indeed, the Laeken Indicators agreed to by the European Union in 2001, and discussed in a later
section, contain no measures of social, cultural or even political participation and focus entirely on
employment, income and education measures.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 23
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
increased in the past decade. There is also rising concern in Europe over the contribution
unemployment and job insecurity is making to broader forms of social insecurity, and
thence to social exclusion (Gadrey & Jany-Catrice, 2005).
If one considers economic exclusion to extend further and to embrace the fuller range of
material resources represented by government taxes, transfers and social spending, the
importance of this categorization of social exclusion becomes obvious. At the same time, it
risks ignoring the importance of non-material resources or exclusion based on relations of
prejudice or discrimination. It also fails to consider that some groups in society may
wilfully exclude themselves from certain social relations as a way of creating strong group
identities or challenging what may be perceived as a highly unequal social system; or to
avoid the regulatory gaze of state officials that is particularly directed towards those reliant
upon government transfers such as welfare or employment insurance.
How does one go about including individuals and groups into a set of structured
social relationships responsible for excluding them in the first place? Or, put another
way, to what extent do efforts at social inclusion accommodate people to relative
powerlessness rather than challenge the hierarchies that create it? To what degree
might we consider wilful social exclusion by groups an important moment of
conflict, an empowered act of resistance to socioeconomic systems that, by their
logic and rules, continue to replicate and heighten the material hierarchies of
inequality? (Labonté, 2003:99)11
3.3 Social Inclusion
The final comments in the preceding section, by questioning what type of society and social
relations is envisioned in efforts to avoid social exclusion or to promote social inclusion,
surface the inherently political subtext to both concepts. As Spandler (2007) cautioned
about social inclusion, the concept makes a paradoxical claim in expressing both a “genuine
demand to tackle consequences of social inequality” and at the same time becoming
“another way people with … problems are subject to moral and social regulation.”
Compared to social exclusion, where there is some theoretical agreement over the
processes by which people become marginalized within society, there is much less
agreement on the concept of social inclusion, which has had little theoretical or definitional
work in its own right beyond such idealized statements as:
11 Barry (2002), amongst others, has also drawn attention to the wilful social exclusion of the rich
who are able to avoid taxation and, with their personal wealth and global mobility, have little
personal need for the public goods that the state can ensure.
24 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Social inclusion must come down to somewhere to live, something to do and
someone to love. It's as simple - and as complicated as that (Fraser 2003, cited in
Grove 2008:2)
Other definitions merely supplement such idealism, describing social inclusion a proactive
approach where all people and groups in society are valued, can live with dignity and
where their basic needs are fulfilled (Freiler, 2002; Roeher Institute, 2003); sometimes
adding the tautological tag that social inclusion involves a focus on actions to bring about
the conditions for social inclusion. Some definitions approach social inclusion as a state:
…a society where all people are given the opportunity to participate fully in political,
cultural, civic and economic life because they feel valued, their differences are
respected and their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity
(www.healthyplaces.org.au/site/glossary.php)
While others emphasize actions to bring about such a state:
…a program of measures to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities to
learn, to work, to be involved with their community and to have a voice on decisions
that affect them (www.deakin.edu.au/equity-diversity/definitions.php)
Reference is often made specifically to socially excluded groups (‘marginalized individuals,’
‘the vulnerable’) or to groups facing multiple forms of deprivation.
Shookner (2000:2-3), writing in a Canadian context, outlined five foundational values that
would (should?) inform actions intended to improve social inclusion:
1. Social justice (fair distribution of inclusion and resources)
2. Valuing diversity (recognition and respect; valuing all contributions)
3. Opportunities for choice
4. Entitlement to rights and services
5. Working together (common interests &relations = basis for action)
While 1 through 4 in this list are the obverse of social exclusion (valuing diversity being the
opposite of socially excluding discrimination), the fifth is somewhat novel, albeit
overlapping somewhat with social exclusion’s occasional reference to social networks.
Participation in social activities beyond simply economic ones is generally regarded as an
indicator of social inclusion (Burchardt, et al., 1999). Some have argued that the degree of
participation is important to understanding the level of social inclusion (Aasland & Flotten,
2001; Rawal, 2008), similar to efforts in the 1970s and 1980s to quantify the number of
social contacts or connexions that were associated with outcomes such as those measuring
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 25
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
physical and mental health.12 But Shookner’s ideal of ‘working together’ goes even further
and begins to capture what Saloojee (undated) emphasized was the imperative of social
inclusion: to engage in political struggles to remove barriers to equitable social
participation, that is, “social inclusion is the political response to exclusion…[It] is about
advocacy and transformation.” For Jansen (2007) this political response resides in ensuring
full access for all people to fundamental human rights, a strategy that is more successful
when such rights are written into a country’s laws (Schrecker, et al., 2010).
Yet even these comments place inclusion relative to exclusion. Generally, when social
inclusion has been conceptualized in the academic discourse it has been only in relation (or
opposition) to social exclusion (Cameron, 2006; Rawal, 2008; Labonté, 2003) with the two
concepts seen as inseparable sides of the same theoretical coin (even sometimes
represented in shorthand as ‘SE/SI’). Unsurprisingly, the resulting policy discourse on
social inclusion has tended to focus on the processes or factors that would reduce exclusion
(Cameron, 2006). The European Union (2004:8), for example, defines social inclusion as a
process to ensure that those at risk of exclusion “gain the opportunities and resources
necessary to participate fully in economic, social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of
living and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live.” While this
reduction of the two concepts to a similar coinage might be argued an over-simplification,
there is little in the theoretical or empirical literature on social inclusion to suggest
otherwise.
3.4 Summarizing the terrain: an operational definition of social exclusion
Our examination of the key concepts involved in social exclusion (poverty, deprivation,
social exclusion itself, economic exclusion, social inclusion) provides grounds for an
operational definition of social exclusion. There are two ways of approaching a definition:
as a state, or a process (or set of processes). Social exclusion as a state describes individuals
who are unable to participate in economic, social, political and (for some theorists) cultural
activities at a level considered to be normatively acceptable. They have become socially
excluded. Importantly, however, most of the use of this concept (both theoretically and in
policy discourse) is concerned less with the state of social exclusion (apart from the
tendency to enumerate those groups who are so excluded) and much more with the
processes of social exclusion. These processes (which are the concern of this report)
include:
12 There is, of course, a difference between voluntary seclusion and enforced isolation, noted by
many of the writings on social exclusion and inclusion. While most of the concern is directed
towards enforced isolation, the voluntary seclusion of wealthy individuals referenced earlier by
Barry (2002) remains problematic in respect of the state’s capacity to ensure that others have the
material means to avoid isolation.
26 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
a lack of material resources (food, shelter, clothing and other normatively defined
social necessities)
a lack of income to acquire such necessities (generated through employment or
government subsidies and transfers)
a lack of access to formal labour markets (to provide adequacy and security of
income, as well as access to social relations)
a lack of access to adequate and affordable housing (extending beyond basic shelter
to incorporate aspects of overcrowding, disrepair, insecure tenancy)13
a lack of access to educational and health care opportunities (to improve access to
formal labour markets and reduced barriers to broader forms of social
participation)
socially conditioned and structured forms of discrimination (which reduces access
to formal labour markets, educational and health care opportunities and broader
forms of social participation)
a lack of power or voice to influence the policy choices of governments influencing
all of the above conditions (which extends to lack of political freedoms or human
rights)
The contribution that social inclusion makes conceptually to this definition is that it
assumes a commitment to achieve these ends through social mobilizations (advocacy) that,
in part, begin to reduce inequalities in power relations. Both concepts also reference social
participation (more so in writings on social inclusion), and the importance of social
networks (in exclusion expressed as ‘isolation,’ in inclusion captured by ‘working
together’). Finally:
Miliband (2006) recommends thinking about social exclusion in three ways: wide,
deep and concentrated exclusion. Wide exclusion refers to the large number of
people excluded on a single or small number of indicator(s). Concentrated exclusion
refers to the geographic concentration of problems and to area exclusion. Deep
exclusion refers to those excluded on multiple and overlapping dimensions (Levitas,
et al., 2007:14).
This implies that any choice of indicator set should be able to address these three aspects
of social exclusion; that is, the indicators should capture a broad swathe of dimensions
(social processes) that characterize social exclusion; be capable of disaggregation to
geographic areas (ideally local areas or even neighbourhoods); and be linkable to specific
individual or groups..
3.5 Towards a conceptual framework
13 The importance of housing as a vector of exclusion or inclusion becomes more apparent in the
review of frameworks and indicators in the section that follows.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 27
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Following a review of the content of the concepts associated with social exclusion and
social inclusion, the logical next step towards selection of indicators is organizing the
content into a conceptual framework. Such a framework should enable a simple (but not
simplified) understanding of the social processes that influence both exclusion and
inclusion (Health Canada, 2002), with, as noted above, such processes in the literature
generally being referenced to exclusion rather than to inclusion. Carr and Chen (2004)
argue that these processes can be considered in three ways: as exclusion from what (land,
housing, other productive assets, credit, secure jobs, productive work, income worker
benefits), exclusion by how (market transactions, policies, social norms) and exclusion by
whom (dominant players and institutions). The latter category is important since an
‘enforced lack’ of the resources needed to avoid social exclusion implicates actors and
decision-makers. Exclusion from the what and by the how are not simply accidental events.
At the same time, this particular project for HRSDC centres on indicators, which generally
describe states and processes but rarely, if ever, specific actors. The ‘by whom’ of social
exclusion requires the political and analytical step of allocating responsibilities for both
processes that exclude, and for policy, program or other forms of social intervention that
include by minimizing such processes. We do not undertake such a step in this paper,
although the review findings and our suite of suggested indicators should be useful in any
such analysis.
Efforts have been made in several jurisdictions (notably the UK, the European Union and
Australia) to develop frameworks and accompanying indicators to operationalize social
exclusion (Cantillon, 2001; Atkinson, et al., 2002). The multi-dimensional nature of social
exclusion is widely recognized in such work, with various efforts to model social exclusion
by looking at how resources, services and information are allocated in society through
private (such as market), public (public payments and services), voluntary (collective
action), family and friends (reciprocal, cultural and other non-market) and other social
processes (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2008). Accordingly, an individual's
sense of belonging or inclusion in society depends on adequacy across the totality of these
systems, and not merely on any one sphere. Four frameworks encountered in our review
stood out for having been used empirically or developed for policy relevance; and in
chronological order these are described below.
Stewart (2002), in response to the EU’s 2000 Lisbon Summit announcing poverty and
social exclusion as unacceptable and presenting its set of Laeken indicators in 2001 as a
way of measuring progress within EU member states, argued the importance of an
expanded set of measures.14 Her framework embraced five domains of what she referred to
as ‘well-being’ (but which capture the essential processes leading to social exclusion or
inclusion):
14 The Laeken indicators are described in the next section of this report.
28 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
1. material well-being (encompassing poverty, income distribution and housing
quality)
2. participation in productive life (unemployment measures)
3. education (attainment and registration levels)
4. health (self-assessed and two mortality measures, the latter presumed to provide,
again, a measure of geographic concentration of social exclusion) and
5. social participation (club memberships and social networks)
Housing quality and social participation are additional to the Laeken indicators. The former
was considered important by the EU when it developed its Laeken indicators, but was less
well developed (a problem Stewart attempted to overcome); and the latter was simply seen
as secondary to labour market participation. Stewart’s measures were analyzed for how
well they captured regional disparities within the EU, the results challenging the utility of
the single regional disparity measure (variation in regional unemployment rates) identified
in the Laeken set. She concluded that, rather than relying upon a single measure, or even a
composite, “different indicators tell very different stories” and “all inclusion indicators
should be analysed” (Stewart, 2002:42). This does not preclude the development of an
index of social exclusion, but cautions that such an index may not provide the level of
policy-relevant detail provided by a more fulsome indicator set.15
Headey’s (2006) multidimensional analysis presents a different framework approach.
Headey is concerned with disadvantage, for which he sees low income, low capabilities,
social exclusion (which he regards primarily from the European concern with social
participation and labour market attachment) and multiple material deprivation as the main
drivers. He approaches his analysis with specific reference to Sen’s capability and
functioning theory of poverty, arguing the importance of four domains (financial,
employment, health and family/social). In his multidimensional model of disadvantage, he
positions low capabilities as producing low functioning that leads to low well-being:
Framework for Multidimensional Analysis of Disadvantage
Low Capabilities
(stocks)
Low Functionings
(flows)
Low Well-Being
(psychological outcomes)
Financial and material
capabilities
Financial and material
functioning
Financial stress
Human capital/employment
Employment/labour market
Job stress
15 One of us (Labonté) has been involved for several years in the creation of the Canadian Index of
Wellbeing, publicly released in its totality in October 2011. While a single measure, the CIW is
composed of indices from eight different domains, each of which tracks up to 10 headline indicators
and a number of secondary ones. The single index is not intended to be used in isolation from the
more detailed domain and indicator specific analyses.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 29
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
capabilities
functioning
Health capabilities
Health functioning
Health satisfaction
Family and social
capital/capabilities
Family and social
functioning
Satisfaction with family/life
satisfaction
(adapted from Headey, 2006:18)
Headey was able to measure longitudinally changes in the stocks, flows and outcomes using
twenty-seven indicators collected by the Australian HILDA (Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia) survey and census data. While presenting an interesting analytical
interpretation of Sen’s capability approach (which, in turn, is seen as influential in more
recent theoretical writing on social exclusion), Headey’s interests lay more in studying the
causal relation between the three sets of stocks, flows and outcomes than as a proposed set
of indicators to measure either social exclusion or inclusion, although we return to his
indicator selection in the next section of this paper.
Levitas and colleagues (2007) in the UK proposed a concise conceptual framework of social
exclusion that focused on three main domains and ten sub-domains (the ‘Bristol Social
Exclusion Matrix’ or B-SEM):
Resources
Material and economic resources
Access to public and private services
Social resources
Participation
Economic participation
Social participation
Culture, education and skills
Political and civic participation
Quality of life
Health and well-being
Living environment
Crime, harm and criminalization (Levitas, et al., 2007)
The inclusion of quality of life as a domain repeats the conceptual awkwardness
encountered earlier in the European Commission definition of social exclusion. However,
its meaning is clarified somewhat by the sub-domains it enumerates. With respect to health
(bracketing the problematic addition of the notion of well-being), the argument is that
illness, which might arise as a consequence of social exclusion, can also be a cause of social
exclusion. This cause/consequence argument is the same encountered with poverty; and
interestingly, has also been made with reference to poverty and health, where illness can
be both a consequence and a cause of poverty (although the weight of evidence suggests a
30 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
much stronger causal relation from poverty to illness, than the reverse). Some measure of
health is found in virtually all models or frameworks of social exclusion, generally
incorporating indicators of life expectancy at birth and self-reported health.16 Three of
Levitas’ sub-domains (access to services, living environment and crime) relate to the
potential geographical concentration of exclusion underscored by Miliband (2006); and the
concern with crime (or what other frameworks identify as personal safety) is justified by
the likelihood that a high-crime area impedes opportunities for social, cultural and civic
participation, as well as being less likely to provide employment opportunities. Levitas and
colleagues incorporate discrimination within the sub-domain of crime, which is a debatable
placement and is not well analyzed in their work. Nonetheless, and drawing from a number
of related studies and indicator sets available in the UK, the B-SEM was found to be a useful
tool in an analysis of social exclusion across five life cycle stages: children, young people,
working age adults, older people and very old people.
The B-SEM framework influenced a second and more elaborated framework developed by
the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research in Australia (Scutella, et
al., 2009). This framework identified seven domains of social exclusion (material resources,
employment, education and skills, health and disability, social, community and personal
safety), incorporating 25 different components. It is more explicit than the B-SEM on the
issue of discrimination and adds new components of institutionalization (which limits or
severely confines social participation), internet access (increasingly seen as a vector of
social inclusion, and a potential means of avoiding economic exclusion, see Helsper, 2008),
voter turnout (an imperfect measure of political participation) and voluntary
activity/membership (which, with measures of social support, are often considered proxy
indicators of social capital). Indicators for each of these components exist within Australian
data sets (though not always as robust as the developers of the framework would like); and
while the framework has not yet, to our knowledge, been used analytically, it was
contributed to and reviewed by representatives from a wide range of government
departments. This high level of government involvement in its creation, the authors argue,
makes it particularly relevant to policy and program application.17
16 Mortality is also sometimes used as a geographic indicator of concentrated social exclusion but, at
the risk of being a bit cheeky, all one can say about being dead is that it is axiomatically socially
excluding, though certain after-life religions may disagree.
17 Generally, literature on the utility of social indicators in policy and program work emphasizes the
importance of engagement of affected stakeholders in indicator selection. Although this can become
problematic unless boundaries are drawn around who comprises a stakeholder (everyone
potentially affected by the measurement?), it reflects the fact that externally imposed measures are
rarely successfully integrated within monitoring systems unless there is some participation in their
selection by the monitors. For a discussion on this, see Hancock, et al., 1999).
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 31
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Proposed framework for measuring poverty and social exclusion in Australia
(Scutella, et al. 2009)
Domains
Components
Material Resources
Household income
Household net worth
Household consumption expenditure
Homelessness
Financial hardship
Employment
Paid work: employed, self-employed,
unemployed, non-employed, underemployed
Undertaking unpaid work
Education and skills
Basic skills (literacy and numeracy)
Educational attainment
Lifelong learning
Health and disability
Physical health
Mental health
Disability or long-term health condition
Social
Institutionalisation/separation from family
Social support
Participation in common social activities
Internet access
Community
Access to transport
Access to health, utilities and financial services
Neighbourhood quality
Voter enrolment
Civic participation and voluntary
activity/membership
Personal safety
Victim of crime
Subjective safety
Victim of discrimination
32 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
3.5.1 Revised conceptual framework
In our proposal and first deliverable on this project, we included a conceptual framework
that drew quite extensively from Scutella and colleagues. This choice was based upon an
initial and brief scoping review, and was made due to this framework’s recent development
and its incorporation of many of the arguments advanced in earlier frameworks. The more
extensive review that we have since undertaken has led us to revise the framework,
dropping, for instance, reference to wider system factors or physiological traits that, while
part of the macro- and micro-contexts of social exclusion, are not easily reducible to the
meso-level indicators of policy intervention which we presume is of greatest HRSDC
interest. Components of the original seven domains have also been altered, to reflect the
frequency with which they were encountered in the literature, and the extent to which they
survived the step-wise process of indicator selection discussed earlier. Finally, given that
little theorizing or modeling exists of social inclusion that does not reference social
exclusion, we label this framework simply ‘social exclusion (inclusion)’. The inner circle of
inclusion within the larger circle of exclusion is meant to convey that the presence or
absence of some of the components leading towards the circles can either enhance
inclusion or worsen exclusion.
The narrative of this framework summarizes the theoretical and empirical literature just
reviewed. Material resources are the bedrock of social exclusion (when they are lacking) or
inclusion (when they are adequate for both basic needs and normative social activities).
The employment domain is relevant since its lack has adverse effects on material
resources, and on social participation (networks, support). Education and skills provide
capacity to participate socially and engage in more secure forms of employment. Housing
adequacy, affordability and security emerges as an important sub-set of material resources,
extending beyond the basic need for shelter. The health domain has relevance since
adverse health conditions can affect productivity levels, while having a disability can lead
to social exclusion. With the social resources domain, institutionalized persons or persons
separated from their families generally have reduced social resources and are at greater
risk of exclusion. On the other hand, having social resources (social networks, or the
density of one’s social life; social support, or the quality of what is offered in these
networks; and opportunities for different forms of social participation) are considered
processes of inclusion. Community resources are identified as a separate domain and
encompass access to community services, and opportunities for political and civic
participation. Finally, the personal safety domain refers to exposure to crime or
discrimination that may impact on, or prevent, individuals from participating in economic,
social, civic or political activities.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 33
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of Social Exclusion (Inclusion)
Material resources
Household income
Public goods/subsidies
Homelessness
Financial hardship
Education and skills
Literacy and numeracy
Lifelong learning
Employment-relevant
skills
Employment
Secure job
Adequate
remuneration
Employment
benefits
Personal safety
Subjective safety
Discrimination/prejudice
Threat of harm
Community resources
Access to community services
Civic participation
Political participation
Social resources
Social support
Social participation
Social networks
Health
Physical health
Mental health
Disability
Inclusion
Housing
Adequacy and affordability
Crowding
Homelessness
34 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
4. Approaches to measuring social exclusion18
Although the concept of social exclusion began to receive attention in the academic
literature in the late 1970s development of theoretical approaches to the measurement of
social exclusion was initiated only in the late 1990s. There are several possible
explanations for this lag. Policy emphasis in Europe, Canada and the US during the 1970s
and 1980s remained focused on antipoverty measures and developing social and economic
indicators to monitor changes in poverty levels. At the same time, however, there were
major shifts in government macro-economic policy from a poverty reduction approach to
an open market policy, leading to reduced monetary transfers to low income and
disadvantaged families. One consequence of this policy change was a rise in poverty,
unemployment, homelessness and mental health problems – indeed, the catalysts to
European interest in the concepts of social exclusion and cohesion. Policy measures
subsequently adopted to deal with negative social and economic trends began to bifurcate
into two main approaches: those broadly categorized as a poverty line approach (based on
money and its distributional aspect) and those on a social exclusion approach (focusing on
participation, capacity, health, relationship, and political freedoms in addition to income)
(The Roeher Institute, 2003). In other words, the development of measurement approaches
to social exclusion was driven by a need for policy responses to perceived problems
associated with processes that extended beyond simply income poverty.
One major problem with the measurement of social exclusion is that, as this report has
found, there is little consensus about its meaning apart from it being a multi-faceted
concept (Levitas, 1999; Lessof & Jowell, 2000). Further complicating matters has been the
tendency to use available quantitative measures, with social exclusion being defined
retrospectively more by the choice of available indicators than prospectively by social
theorizing. Such measures are often, although not always, objective, measuring externally
observable states rather than perceptions. (A notable exception in most social exclusion
lists is self-assessed health.) Berman and Phillips (2000), following their review of the
social indicators literature for its implications in measuring ‘social inclusion/exclusion’
(they regard the concepts as entwined under the broader theoretical trope of ‘social
quality’), argue that indicators should include both objective and subjective measures that
extend beyond the state or experience of exclusion to incorporate processes of inclusion.
Unfortunately, their work is more theoretical than empirical. As well, a gender-based
understanding of social exclusion, although present in the literature, has not yet been
adequately addressed in measurement. These limitations make development of a robust
and rigorous Canadian model (with selective indicators) challenging.
What follows is a review of some of the international and national experiences with
measuring social exclusion, social inclusion or both.
18 Note that detailed lists of domains, indicators and frequency of citations for each can be found in
Appendix A.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 35
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
4.1.1 UK experiences
Growing inequality in the UK during the 1990s created concern in the government that led
to the consideration of social exclusion as a central policy interest. Burchardt et al. (1999)
and Stewart (2002) of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) attempted to
develop indicators to measure social exclusion. Stewart’s framework and indicator types
(though not her actual measures) were described in the previous section. The work by
Burchardt and colleagues is, in some respects, simpler and incorporates five domains,
explaining their link to exclusion and proposing indicators available from the British
Household Panel Survey 1991-1995. We include a table of these indicators (unlike other
sets, they are succinct) as an example of the actual measures frequently used to capture the
indicator.
Burchardt et al.: Social Exclusion Indicators (1995)
Dimension
Exclusion
Indicator
Consumption activity
Low income
Income under half mean
equivalized household
income
Savings activity
Low wealth
Not an owner-occupier, not
contributing to or receiving
an occupational or personal
pension, and no savings over
£2,000
Production activity
Lacks production activity
Not in employment or self-
employment, full-time
education or training,
looking after children, or
retired over pensionable age
Political activity
Politically unengaged
Did not vote in the 1992
general election and not
member of political or
campaigning organization
Social activity
Socially isolated
In any one of five respects,
lacks someone who will offer
support (listen, help in crisis,
can relax with, really
appreciates you, can count
on to comfort)
These indicators were intended to measure the extent of exclusion, the number of people
excluded on several domains, and over what period of time. Low income was the dominant
form of exclusion, while only a small percentage (< 6%) experienced exclusion on three or
36 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
more domains. There was little change over the time period studied. Not all of the
Burchardt’s indicators, however, mapped readily with their domains, a problem they
acknowledged and one common to ex-post use of administrative data to capture
phenomena of interest not anticipated in the design of survey instruments. While the
simplicity of this model is appealing, the lack of variance over time and low incidence of
multiple forms of deprivation are counter-intuitive to more theoretical writing on social
exclusion and, indeed, are not reflected in studies in the UK and elsewhere that used more
detailed sets of measures (e.g. Palmer, et al. 2008; Tsakloglou & Papadopoulos 2001, 2002;
Levitas, 2006).
In 1998, the New Policy Institute of the UK proposed a much larger set of 46 indicators to
measure social exclusion under a number of domains (such as financial well-being and
stability, access to financial services, employment, health factors, education, family
dynamics, environment, social network), with the intent that these measures could be
periodically updated (Howarth, et al. 1998). This approach and its indicators, like
Burchardt et al.’s, work were designed to use existing sources of data to investigate social
exclusion in the UK. Lessof and Jowell (2000) later adapted and re-categorized the original
set into nine domains. The strength of these indicators is that they were drawn at both the
individual and aggregate-level of data, such as self-reported difficulty managing financially,
or lacking a bank account (individual); and the gap between low and median income
(aggregate). The approach, however, was criticized as some of the indicators proved
difficult to measure (such as percent of children whose parents are divorced or level of
criminality among young adults); and others were ambiguous in interpretation (such as
dissatisfaction with local area). Palmer et al. (2008) later expanded the original set to 56
measures, organized by age groups (children, young adults, working-age adults, and older
people) and two book-end categories (money, and community). The age-group categories
were sub-divided in a somewhat theoretical fashion (with measures for economic
circumstances, common to all, and education, social cohesion and health appearing in
some). We emphasize the somewhat theoretical fashion, however, since the links between
indicator and concept are sometimes stretched (e.g. adult victims of burglary as a measure
of social cohesion, presumably intending a lack thereof; and again conflating social level
phenomena with individual level outcomes). Nonetheless, the findings generated by these
measures have been used in policy debates around particular dimensions of exclusion that
have improved, held steady or worsened over time.
Berman and Phillips (2000) looked at exclusion issues theoretically, rather than from what
data might be available, and adopted a relational perspective that focused on inadequate
social participation, lack of social integration and lack of power. Social inclusion (they are
one of the rare researchers to use this term, rather than social exclusion) is regarded as one
of four dimensions that they theorize as ‘social quality.’ They proposed eight domains for
inclusion:
1. social security (access to social security services, avoidance of low income)
2. labour market (access to jobs, employment)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 37
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
3. housing market (access to neighbourhoods, subsidized housing, homelessness)
4. health service (access to health services)
5. education (access to educational and cultural services)
6. political (restrictions to participate in the political process)
7. community services (access to leisure facilities and neighbourhood services) and
8. social status (access to social and leisure facilities)
Restriction to political participation (different from measures of voter turnout rate
frequently encountered in indicator sets for social exclusion) enriches this particular
aspect, although it is not amenable to simple measurement. Access to social and leisure
facilities improves upon generic measures (such as ‘dissatisfaction with local area’ in the
New Policy Institute set); such facilities are measurable through GIS mapping of
neighbourhoods, and are often included in neighbourhood health or quality of life studies.
Whether such measures are readily obtainable or useful for a national-level set of social
exclusion indicators is questionable. The other three dimensions comprising their social
quality set are socio-economic security (which contains measures of material, employment
and housing and health security, all of which are consistent with social exclusion
theorizing); social cohesion (in which measures of political participation, public safety,
discrimination and ‘participation in … solidaristic voluntary organisations’ are identified,
although these remain, to our minds, individual measures of inclusion rather than a
collective measure of cohesion); and empowerment (where indicators for ethnocultural,
gender and economic equity are suggested). While Berman and Phillips offer one of the
theoretically more interesting approaches to indicators, and do identify potential measures
(at least in principle), their contribution is more theoretical than practical; and they do not
identify specific data sets from which they might obtain measures for their indicators.
The B-SEM (Levitas, et al., 2007), another UK effort to measure social exclusion discussed
earlier in this report, populated its fairly simple framework with almost 60 different
measures. Most are common to other indicator lists, although several are somewhat unique
albeit seeming to lack any clear linkage to theories of either social exclusion or inclusion:
for example, personal development and self-esteem (vague and contested constructs at
best, and for which no agreed upon measures exist), self-harm (which should more likely
be considered a consequence of exclusion, although it could also be seen as a group-form of
inclusion) and access to open space. This is a caution about measures becoming nice
shopping lists into which interesting indicators are inserted; but for which their usefulness
in analyzing or understanding processes of exclusion/inclusion is not apparent or well
thought out. Providing or undertaking unpaid work is another of B-SEM’s novel but
ambiguous measure which affirms this point. On the one hand, as the authors argue, unpaid
work is increasingly considered a form of economic participation (Levitas, et al., 2007:90),
but on the other, the requirement or expectation (often gendered) for such work could
exclude individuals or households from improving material security through paid work.
Thus, this measure captures an important phenomenon, but its usefulness as an indicator
of exclusion or inclusion remains limited. Although development of the B-SEM and its
measures was undertaken as a government contract for the Social Exclusion Task Force, it
38 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
is not known whether the framework and its measures have been applied to policy
analysis.
4.1.2 French experiences
Since 2000, the Observatoire national de la pauvreté et de l’exclusion sociale, an arms-length
group established by the French government, has published reports analyzing poverty and
social exclusion in France, using eleven key measures. Five of these measures focus on
poverty itself (including depth and intensity, and persons experiencing life difficulties);
while others assess dependence on social assistance (and persistence of such dependence);
lack of access to certain fundamental rights (including access to health care, education,
employment benefits or adequate housing); and one measure of income inequality. Not all
of these are based upon single measures; for example, the measure for life difficulties is
derived from people reporting difficulties in eight or more areas of life from a list of
twenty-seven indicators developed by INSEE (Institut national de la statistique et des
études économiques), the official statistical arm of the French government, ranging from
financial problems, to inability to replace worn furniture or to have three meals a day, to
any of ten noted problems with housing. While this level of detail sheds light on the quality
of people’s daily material conditions, the suggested indicators do not encompass any of the
social relational dimensions of exclusion.
Using a battery of fifty-eight statistical indicators, the ‘BIP 40’ (Baromètre des Inégalités et
de la Pauvreté) provides a summary measure of inequality and social exclusion in six major
domains: employment, income and poverty, health, housing, education and justice (Gadrey
and Jany-Catrice, 2005; see also www.bip40.org). The BIP 40 was developed by the French
network, "Réseau d’alerte sur les inégalités" (Alert Network on Inequalities) in 1999, in
response to concerns over poverty and unemployment, notably in France. Its name is
derived, in part, from the ‘CAC 40’ (a stock exchange index) and an inversion of the French
acronym for GDP. The indicators are selected based on commonly available data sets with
the intent of ensuring attention to issues of gender and international inequalities; and may
change from year to year. Each of the variables is ‘normalized’ by examining its
performance over a given time period (in the most recent available reports, from 1980 up
until 2005), and assigning it a score of 0 (indicating the indicator’s value in the year in
which the lowest inequality was recorded) through 10 (representing the year in which the
highest inequality was recorded).19 The aggregated ‘barometer’ indicates that, since 1980,
poverty and inequality in France have steadily increased. While unemployment was an
important factor, much of the increase in the BIP 40 inequality index is attributed to rising
19 Within the aggregation process and for any given study undertaken using the BIP 40, two
dimensions are weighted more than others: those associated with labour and employment
(measures of unemployment, precarious employment and labour conditions), and with income
(measures of consumption, inequalities/distribution, poverty and wages). These are weighted at a
quarter, while the other measures are weighted at one-eighth.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 39
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
insecurity in the labour market, and deterioration in housing markets (both conclusions
supported by the individual indicators for both items tracked by the ONPES). Indeed, over
one 15 year period the unemployment rate varied by 10 per cent, but without any effect on
the BIP 40 index. This suggests, to those analysts working with the BIP 40, that concern
over inequalities in France need to extend beyond simply employment measures (Houdart,
et al. 2004). However, that some measures of income poverty are improving (according to
the ONPES indicators, only the intensity of poverty has worsened in recent years) raises
the familiar caution about the importance of tracking individual measures, and not simply
composites; and about the subjective nature of how weights are accorded to different
variables in an index. As well, if the justice measures from the BIP 40 are removed, the
index would suggest that poverty and inequality have been falling since 1990.20 Indeed, the
BIP 40 has come under considerable criticism for these weaknesses from INSEE. These
cautions are underscored by attempts at regional application of the BIP 40, where a lack of
data at lower geographic scales has led to a number of non-comparable adaptations. The
latest information we located suggests that the BIP 40 has not been recalculated in recent
years.
A 2008 report of the French senate, in its review of different French and European poverty
and exclusion measures, argued that individual indicators of poverty and exclusion should
not be viewed in isolation from one another (Seillier, 2008). Rather, one of two approaches
could be considered: the bundled index, or a hierarchic table of selected indicators. In
discussing the pros and cons of both approaches, the report recommends the latter
approach; arguing the need for a fairly limited set of indicators (though without specifying
an exact number) and a closure on what it saw as a potentially expanding universe of issues
threatening to populate the poverty/exclusion policy debate. In keeping with French (and
broader EU) concerns with labour market attachment, many of the report’s policy
recommendations dealt with employment measures (‘insertion’), but also emphasized the
importance of citizen rights in access to public services, with particular note given to the
rising French problem of housing costs and inadequacies.
In neighbouring Belgium, and as part of its efforts under the EU social inclusion project (Les
plans d’action nationale d’inclusion sociale), a set of national action plans were created,
monitored by a range of indicators organized under six domains: income, employment,
housing, health, education and social integration. Twenty-five different measures were
used to trend changes in income, many of them directly related to poverty rates (depth,
intensity, duration, stratified by age, sex, geography and other variables); but also including
post-transfer estimates and a few measures of inequality (S80/S20 and a Gini coefficient).
Several measures were used for employment, with an emphasis on long-term
20 The group behind the BIP 40 argues that the justice domain is a particularly important one since
incarceration rates or lack of due legal process reflect the increasing ‘exclusion’ of new immigrant
groups to France, and to persons living in deep poverty; both of which are less likely to have their
experiences captured by surveys.
40 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
unemployment and households where there were no employed members. Housing
indicators included income-related measures as well as perceived adequacy. There were a
surprising number of health indicators (including obesity and tobacco use rates, and a
preventive health behaviours), the relationship of which to social exclusion is not readily
apparent. A similarly large set of education measures was used. The social integration
measures ranged from items focusing on social support and social activities, to households
with an internet connection. The rather lengthy set of measures seem somewhat at odds
with the advice favoured by the French senate; yet despite this, little variance was noted
over time. Since the Belgian use of these measures spans only a few years (unlike the
historical trend analyses undertaken by the BIP 40), it suggests that such measures (which
are identical to many in the indicator sets we encountered) may not be sensitive to change
in the short-term.21
4.1.3 Broader European experiences
In developing an index of social exclusion from the ‘chronic cumulative disadvantage’ point
of view, Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002) focused on the distribution of
individual welfare and imposed a cut-off point to identify the risk of deprivation. This
approach was initiated, primarily, to identify the population at high risk of social exclusion
and examined similarities and differences across EU member states during the mid-1990s.
Using this approach, the authors identified aggregated cross-country variations in four
domains of social exclusion:
1. income (with such indicators as net income from all sources during the previous
year, current net monthly income)
2. living conditions (22 items covering household amenities in the dwelling, problems
with a household’s accommodation, and lack of durable goods)
3. necessities of life (ability of the households to afford certain necessities such as to
keep their homes adequately warm, pay for a week’s annual holiday away from
home, replace a worn-our furniture, buy new clothes, eat meat or fish every second
day, have friends or family for a drink or meal at least once a month) and
4. social relations (talk to neighbours once or twice a month, meet friends once or
twice a month, not members of a club or organization, or political party)
Among their findings generated through multivariate regression analyses: social exclusion
is associated with lack of full-time (secure) employment, low education, lone parenthood,
non-EU citizenship and bad health; although the extent to which strong labour market
attachment, good educational qualifications and stable family conditions are barriers to
exclusion varies considerably by country. Even when these positive (inclusive)
characteristics are present, EU countries categorized as ‘social democratic’ show
21 Belgium, of course, and not excepting the Flemish/Walloon divide, may itself be the exceptional
case.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 41
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
significantly lower rates of exclusion compared to the liberal regimes and minimalist
welfare southern Mediterranean states. Finally, this study took into account the temporal
duration of deprivation.
One of the most cited sets of measures were developed for the European Social Inclusion
Strategy in response to the Lisbon Agenda of 2000 and its goal of poverty eradication in the
European Union (Scutella, et al., 2009). The set of economic and social indicators, also
known as Laeken indicators, were endorsed by the governments of the European Union
(EU) in the Brussels suburb of Laeken, Belgium in 2001. These indicators, similar to
Stewart’s framework described in the previous section, were categorized in four domains:
material/economic resources; economic participation; education/knowledge; and health. A
total of 10 primary and 8 secondary indicators were developed for all four domains
(Atkinson et al. 2004)22.
Primary indicators
1. At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers
Share of persons living in households with an income below 60% national median income
(breakdowns by age and gender, most frequent activity status, household type, tenure
status + illustrative values of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold)
2. Inequality of income distribution
Income quintile ratio (S80/S20): Ratio of total income received by the top 20% of the
country’s population with the highest income (top quintile) to that received by the 20% of
the country’s population with the lowest income (bottom quintile)
3. Persistent risk-of poverty rate (60% median)
Share of persons living in households with an income below the 60% risk-of-poverty
threshold in current year and in at least two of the preceding years (including gender
breakdown)
4. Relative median at risk-of-poverty gap
Difference between the median income of persons below the low income threshold and the
at-risk-of-poverty threshold, expressed as a percentage of this threshold (including gender
breakdown)
5. Regional cohesion
Coefficient of variation of employment rates
6. Long term unemployment rate
Total long-term unemployed population (≥12 months; ILO definition) as proportion of total
active population (including gender breakdown)
7. Persons living in jobless households
Persons aged 0-65 living in households where none is working as a proportion of persons
living in households eligible to work
22 We include these in the text at the request of the reviewers. A slightly different list was prepared
in advance of the meeting that settled on this initial Laeken list; see
http://oud.frankvandenbroucke.be/html/soc/Europe%20summary.htm. The only major
differences was the inclusion in the preparatory list of self-reported health by quintile (as the
health measure), a measure of employed people earning low wages (‘working poor’) and access to
the internet – all items encountered in other sets reviewed in this section.
42 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
8. Early school leavers not in education or training
Share of total population of 18-24-year olds having achieved ISCED level 2 or less and not
attending education or training (including gender breakdown)
9. Life expectancy at birth
Number of years a person may be expected to live, starting at age 0, by sex
10. Self-defined health status by income level
Ratio of the proportions in the bottom and top income quintile groups (by equivalised
income) of the population aged 16 and over who classify themselves as in a bad or very bad
state of health (including gender breakdown)
Secondary indicators
11. Dispersion around the risk of poverty threshold
Share of persons living in households with an income below 40, 50 and 70% of national
median income
12. At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time
For a given year n, the “at-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time (e.g. year (n-
4))” is the share of the population whose income in that given year is below a risk-of-
poverty threshold calculated in the standard way (here for the year (n-4)) and then up-
rated for inflation (here, the period concerned is (n-4)-n, but the inflation rate to be applied
if the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) is used as data source is that for the
period (n-5)-(n-1) because the income reference year in the ECHP is the year prior to the
survey)
13. At-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers
At-risk-of-poverty rate where income is calculated as follows:
1. Primary income, i.e. income excluding all social transfers
2. Primary income plus old-age and survivors’ pensions.
3. Total income, i.e. including all social transfers (= primary indicator 1) (including gender
breakdown)
14. Gini coefficient
Relationship of cumulative shares of the population arranged according to the level of
income, to the cumulative share of the total income received by them
15. Persistent risk-of poverty rate (50% median)
Share of persons with an income below the 50% risk-of-poverty threshold in current year
and in at least two of the preceding years (including gender breakdown)
16. Long term unemployment share
Total long-term unemployed population (≥12 months; ILO definition) as proportion of total
unemployed population (including gender breakdown)
17. Very long term unemployment rate
Total very long-term unemployed population (≥24 months; ILO definition) as proportion of
total active population (including gender breakdown)
18. Persons with low educational attainment
Educational attainment rate of ISCED level 2 or less for adult education by age groups (25-
34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64) (including gender breakdown)
The Laeken model has the option to include tertiary indicators, depending on the needs for,
or interest in, measures at the national level. Tertiary indicators were generally designed to
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 43
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
compare exclusion across countries such as the proportion of working-age people claiming
Income Support Allowance for long periods of time, proportion of homeless families with
dependent children in temporary accommodation, and other such items.
The Laeken indicators were not fully used to assess performance across EU member states
until 2004. A number of cross-country studies have since been conducted using the
measures, specifically to explore: i) the relationship between risk of poverty and per capita
social expenditure in the 25 member countries, assessed using Eurostat data; ii) the effects
of taxation and social transfers on individual households; and iii) an analysis of the
financial incentives to work from a social inclusion perspective (Marlier, et al., 2007). The
Laeken indicators have also contributed to advancing how policy planners consider social
processes within EU countries, although analyses using the indicators have not been
adequately comparative (Atkinson, et al., 2005). Four uses of the indicators are suggested:
to assist explanations for differences amongst EU member states, to assist individual states
in their policy development, to promote ‘joined up government’ by identifying where
intersectoral work is required, and target setting. It is unclear the extent to which these
four intents have been operationalized.
A revised set of Laeken indicators (re-labeled as social inclusion, but still dealing with the
processes of social exclusion) was adopted by the Social Protection Committee in June
2006, in which a new measure comparing employment rates for non-immigrants and
immigrants was added to the primary list, as was the suggestion to develop indicators for
housing and child well-being (Sebastian, et al. undated; Atkinson, et al., 2005). Life
expectancy and self-defined health indicators were dropped and replaced by one
measuring unmet health need and number of physician visits in the past year. Surprisingly,
the measure of income inequality was also dropped.23 In its place is a new measure of
material deprivation (households lacking 3 of 9 listed items). The commonly agreed
secondary indicators were streamlined to three sets: income poverty (by different
categories such as household types, work intensity of households, activity status,
accommodation tenure status), low educational qualifications (persons with low
educational attainment and low reading literacy performance of pupils), and material
deprivation (severity of deprivation for deprived population). Despite these changes, the
23 What is somewhat confusing here is that the ‘streamlined’ social inclusion Laeken indicators
overlap considerably with what the European Commission defines as an ‘overarching portfolio’ of
measures for social protection and inclusion. The income inequality measure (S80/S20) is retained
within this overarching portfolio (European Commission, 2009). While measures of income
inequality are not frequently seen in the frameworks we reviewed, their importance as a measure
of social exclusion resides in such inequalities creating a context in which: (1) a small elite can
wilfully exclude itself from the tax redistributive means by which access to ‘social necessities’ are
allocated to those in need; (2) states come to lack fiscal resources to sustain counter-cyclical
spending required to create employment opportunities; and (3) as found in the study by Tsakloglou
and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002) described earlier, ceteris paribus, redistributive states with less
income inequality have lower levels of social exclusion.
44 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
predominance that these indicators give to employment and material conditions, critiqued
by Stewart (2002) above, persists (Feres, et al., 2002; Atkinson, et al., 2005).
4.1.4 Australian experiences
Several efforts to measure social exclusion/inclusion have been attempted in Australia. As
part of the South Australian government’s social inclusion initiative, the Australian
Institute of Social Research developed a model that provided both qualitative and
quantitative indicators that enabled measurement over time (Spoehr, et al., 2007). The
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) 2005 data set used in this initiative
measured:
1. social networks (the proportion of material support respondents received from
friends, neighbours, relatives and work colleagues)
2. community of interest (participation in clubs and societies and the amount and
quality of the networks derived from this participation) and
3. social inclusion (community togetherness and closeness and whether differences
between people living in the same community in terms of wealth, income, social
status, ethnic background and age were perceived to have caused problems or
brought benefits)
Many of these measures are similar to those used in UK and EU studies; although the level
of detail in some is likely only achievable in ‘one-off’ special studies. It is interesting that
this approach chose social inclusion over social exclusion (‘accentuate the positive’?). But
the lack of attention on socioeconomic (structural) and political processes of exclusion
creates a very partial picture of the social inclusion/exclusion dynamic, of hence is of
limited policy usefulness.
Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand poverty, deprivation and
exclusion in Australia, Saunders et al. (2008) proposed 27 indicators under three different
forms of exclusion:
1. disengagement (or lack of participation in social and community activities such as
no regular social contact with other people, did not participate in any community
activities in the last 12 months, children do not participate in school activities or
outings, no hobby or leisure activity for children, no annual week’s holiday away
from home)
2. service exclusion (or lack of adequate access to key services when needed such as
no medical treatment if needed, no access to a local doctor or hospital, no access to a
bank or building society, no disability support services, when needed), and
3. economic exclusion (or restricted access to economic resources and low economic
capacity such as currently unemployed or looking for work, does not have $500 in
savings for use in an emergency, had to sell something, or borrow money in the last
12 months)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 45
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
These indicators were then administered in a random survey of 6,000 adults. What was
unique in this exercise was their ability to develop incidence percentages for each of these
measures (where exclusion from child care, aged care and disability support services was
found to affect almost half the surveyed sample); and to calculate the percentages of
multiple deprivation and exclusion. While more exhaustive in its indicator list than the
Spoehr et al. study, and argued to be important for its highlighting of policy and program
deficiencies in Australia, it suffers the same problem of being a ‘one-off’ study with
measures that are unlikely to be integrated into routine data gathering, or to be
administered in subsequent studies.
Headey’s Australian study, encountered in the previous section for its unusual framework
based upon Sen’s (1999) ‘capabilities’ and ‘functionings’ approach, provided a range of
‘illustrative measures’ for each of his different domains. Recall: he modeled his framework
on what he called ‘stocks’ or capabilities; ‘flows’ or functionings; and ‘well-being.’ Working
across these three categories, his financial dimension was measured by asset poverty
(unable to stay above the national poverty line for 3 months in an emergency), income
poverty (using relative poverty lines and a welfare reliance measure), and survey data on
financial stress and financial satisfaction. The human capital dimension was measured by
school attainment and work experience data; unemployment or jobless household; and job
insecurity/satisfaction. Health and family and social capital were captured in similar ways,
with attention given to multi-item survey scales on social support/networks, and self-
reported work/family stress and life-satisfaction. As we commented on his framework,
Headey’s model and measures are theoretically interesting, but some (at least) are
unsuited to social exclusion. While a measure of job insecurity is an important addendum
to conventionally used measures of employment, measures of family stress or life
satisfaction open up personal domains of which processes of social exclusion (or inclusion)
are only partial contributors, at best.
4.1.5 Other experiences
Responding to the challenge of building an inclusive society as promulgated in the World
Summit for Social Development in 1995, the United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (UNDESA) proposed a set of domains including income poverty, material
deprivation, lack of education, lack of productive role, poor health and poor housing for all
countries involved, and a set of supporting indicators including access to justice, social and
political participation, civil rights, security and justice, well-being, information and
communications, mobility, leisure and culture (United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, 2010). This approach suggested no more than 10 indicators be selected
as lead indicators (less is more, at least for international comparative purposes), although
there was an option to consider additional indicators to highlight specificities in particular
areas or countries. The UNDESA approach, however, has yet to be implemented in any
country or locality; and did not specifically identify what measures should be used for the
lead indicators.
46 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Most recently, a series of attempts have been made to measure the proportion of the
population excluded, using various indicators derived mostly from secondary data (e.g.
Saunders, et al., 2006; Pantazis, 2006). The Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social
Exclusion (PSE) approach (1999) proposed four dimensions of social exclusion:
1. impoverishment (or exclusion from adequate income or resources with such
indicators as income under 60% median household income, lack of socially
perceived necessities)
2. labour market exclusion (exclusion from paid work such as non-participation,
jobless households)
3. service exclusion (exclusion from public and private services with indicators such as
non-participation in common social activities, crisis confinement, disability) and
4. exclusion from social relations (such as disengagement from political and civic
activity) (Gordon, 2000; Pantazis, 2006)
Many of these are similar to other indicator sets, although a distinction can be made
between disengagement from political and civic activity as a form of apathy or ‘detachment
from the moral order,’ and such disengagement as a result of a lack of resources or
enforced disempowerment, such as a failure of states to ensure full political rights and the
minimum resources necessary for their exercise.
In measuring social exclusion, availability of data often plays a key role in selecting domain
and indicators of exclusion. Barnes (2005), for example, measured social exclusion under
such domains as housing, health, education, social relations, and participation, as data on
most of these domains were readily available. Later, the selection of domains was revised
to cover financial situation, ownership of durable goods, the quality of housing,
neighbourhood perception, social support, physical health and psychological well-being
(Barnes, 2005); again, domains for which data were readily available. As discussed earlier,
Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (1999) used the British Household Panel Survey, to
develop indicators in four domains: consumption, production, political engagement and
social interaction.
Finally, in most uses of social exclusion measures, children’s experiences are related to or
derived from that of their parents (Kamerman & Kahn, 2003). Indicators of child social
exclusion focus almost entirely on poverty, conditions of work, and access to health care,
housing, caring services and education. Eurostat, however, added several non-monetary
indicators to this list, including household affordability to eat meat/chicken/fish every
second day, keep the home adequately warm, buy new rather than second-hand clothes,
participate in cultural activities, and develop relationships with neighbours (cited in
Kamerman & Kahn, 2003). While a number of studies have been made of social exclusion of
adults, there has been limited effort to undertake such studies specific to children
(examples include: EC, 2005; Noble et. al., 2001; Noble et. al., 2004; Daly, 2006; Daly et. al.,
2008) although children are generally over-represented in low income households
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 47
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
vulnerable to exclusion. Indicative of the variability of building measures from secondary
sources, Daly et al. (2008) proposed a child social exclusion (CSE) index for Australia with
eight measures from that country’s census data, including sole parent, education,
occupation, tenure type (housing), labour force status, computer use, motor vehicle and
income – all of which obviously relate to parental status, but which also fail to capture
many of the multiple dimensions of social exclusion described in earlier sections of this
report.
4.2 Canadian experiences
Encouraged largely by European experiences, several attempts have been undertaken to
develop approaches to measure social exclusion/inclusion in the Canadian context. Most of
these efforts, as argued by some, produced domains rather than indicators (Mitchell &
Shillington, 2002; Shookner, 2002). Only limited attempts have been made to develop
operational concepts of exclusion/inclusion, to identify relevant indicators, and to
determine how such indicators could be measured (Laidlaw Foundation, 2002). While
social exclusion was recognized as a policy issue in Europe since the 1970s, its importance
in public policy was recognized in Canada only in the late 1990s (Health Canada, 2002),
owing perhaps to the impacts of neoliberal economic restructuring only then beginning to
be felt more strongly, with accompanying reductions in social protection policies in several
provinces and at the federal level (Bryant, et al., 2010).
Health Canada proposed a ‘social inclusion lens’ in 2002, where exclusion/inclusion
elements (or indicators) were viewed through a set of eight domains – cultural, economic,
functional, participatory, physical, political, structural and relational (Health Canada,
2002). Exclusion elements for the economic domain included poverty, unemployment,
inadequate income and deprivation; while inclusion elements incorporated income
security, participation, capability for personal development, sustainable development and
reduction of disparities, amongst others. The cultural domain was similarly general in its
indicator list, calling for measures such as fear of differences and gender stereotyping;
while denial of rights occupied the political domain. This model, to our knowledge, has
never been tested, nor do its indicators translate well into known measures. It was
designed primarily as a workbook for local groups interested in the concepts of
exclusion/inclusion; Health Canada may know more about how it has been used
subsequent to its release.
The Laidlaw Foundation, encouraged by an international movement to improve children’s
well-being (with a focus on the Canadian anti-child poverty ‘Campaign 2000’), explored
exclusion by looking at the major determinants of childhood well-being. The major
domains and relevant indicators in its proposed approach were:
1. physical (such as core housing need, access to public transit, geographic isolation)
2. economic (family poverty, parental income, parental employment)
3. human assets (mortality, disability, access to health services)
48 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
4. social assets (gender, race, self-esteem) and
5. political (such as legal rights, citizen vs. non-citizen status) (Mitchell & Shillington,
2002)
The analysis usefully lines up a number of these indicators with the institution actors
holding authority or capacity to affect changes in them, and even some of the social
processes that would improve or worsen them. Several of the indicators have readily
available measures; but some do not, and remain more as a concept than as a measurable
item: for example, ‘gender’ (which is distinct from sex), autonomy (which the authors
describe as having economic, civic and personal aspects) and geographic isolation (which
would have to be inferred from various other measures).
In 2005 the Centre d’étude sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion (CEPE) of Ministère de l’Emploi et
de la Solidarité sociale (MESS) undertook a major initiative to create an inventory of
poverty and social exclusion in Québec (MESS, 2005). The exercise had two objectives: to
be as comprehensive as possible by covering all aspects of the multidimensional
phenomenon of poverty; and to identify new indicators for use that are already in place in
Quebec, but also to describe a number of other potential indicators for future use. The
project included a Handbook on Poverty and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Quebec (MESS
2006), which is a statistical portrait of poverty and socioeconomic inequalities in the
province. It describes twenty indicators classified into three main categories: poverty,
including depth and government transfers; socio-economic inequalities; and two composite
indicators that address poverty and social exclusion.
Poverty measures:
Low-income cut-off (LICO)
Low-income measure (50% of median income)
Rate of poverty risk (households at less than 60% of median income)
Dispersion of poverty risk using 40%, 50% and 70% of median income
Market basket measure of poverty (a complex index measure of the cost of
multiple items against household income)
Threshold poverty (Sarlo measure, named for Fraser Institute economist who
estimated basic needs, a minimalist and non-relative measure)
Consumption poverty (an adjusted Sarlo measure taking into account a larger
basket of goods and services)
Depth of poverty:
Low-income gap
Depth of low-income
Total intensity/severity of poverty
Government transfers:
Dependency ratio (transfer payments as percentage of employment income)
Percentage of population on social assistance
Length of time on EI benefits
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 49
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Inequality measures:
Population distribution by income
Distribution of income by population quintiles
Ratio of income upper and lower quintiles
Gini coefficient of income
Polarisation coefficient (proportion of population above or below the median)
Index measure of polarisation
Composite indices:
Material and social deprivation
Multidimensional poverty/wealth
It is not known whether or how these indicators have been used. The indices are
interesting, but complex to create. The MESS and CEPE in late 2011 are planning to review
the current status of social exclusion and poverty measures in the province, to identify
knowledge gaps and to improve the framework. What is most striking about the present
framework and measures, however, is the narrow focus on income and, though to a lesser
extent, non-income forms of material resources (such as the market basket and
consumption measures). This attests to the primacy of its concern with income-related
poverty, rather than the broader dimensions of social exclusion discussed earlier in this
report.
The MESS in 2005 released its own compendium of indicators of poverty and social
exclusion (Morasse, 2005). Encompassing 67 different measures, the compendium
organizes its list by three major categories: poverty and social exclusion, related indicators
and social development indices. Most of the measures in the first category have been
already encountered. The issue becomes one of selection, although the sub-categories
reviewed by MESS offer guidance here: incidence, depth, persistence, government
transfers, inequalities and life conditions, which shows, in part, its debt to the work of
INESS and the ONSEP in France. Its gathering of ‘related indicators’ is rather unique, and is
in turn subdivided into seven dimensions:
1. heritage24 (low-income families with no financial wealth, average and median
income by source and tax, and average median wealth)
2. expenditure (consumption poverty, expenditures by low-income households)
3. work (employment rate, stable employment rate, coefficient of variation of
employment rates [from the Laeken indicator set], full-time and part-time job rate,
employment activity rate, unemployment rate, discouraged workers, people living
in jobless households, workers with low incomes and with low-pay work,
involuntary part-time work, long-term and very long-term unemployment rates)
4. food (prevalence of food insecurity and people depending on food banks)
24 Literally ‘patronomie,’ the closest English meaning of which may be ‘family background’
50 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
5. housing (households in core housing need, renters spending 30% or more of their
income on housing by income class, owners spending 30% or more of their income
on housing by income class, low-income households lacking some components of
household equipment, and homeless attending support services)
6. health (life expectancy at birth, and self-rated health status by income level) and
7. education (share of population without high school diploma, young school leavers
not in further education or training, and people with low educational level)
(Morasse, 2005)
The abbreviated health and education measures are welcome, in contrast to the long lists
for these domains encountered in Belgium. Unlike some of the European education
indicators (which include assessments of the relevancy of professional training to labour
market needs), Morasse focuses on the measures highlighted in the Laeken set: level of
attainment and youth drop-out rates. Both have obvious links to potential employment;
and the predominance of labour market measures and lack of indicators of social
participation/activities shows its reliance on European models. The compendium does
reference an index of material and social deprivation, drawing on individual variables
related to education and employment for the material component, and a social network
measure comprised of separation, divorce, widowhood or living alone. Compared to other
measures of social participation, however, the MESS compendium is lacking in several
important areas.
Childhood exclusion in Canada, as in other jurisdictions, has received some, but still limited
attention. Phipps and Curtis (2001) used National Longitudinal Survey of Children and
Youth (NLSCY) data and five measures: lack of success at school, general ill health, inability
to participate in normal activities, poor relations with peers and lack of participation in
organized recreational activities. This represents an improvement over reliance upon
parental or household data, but is also limited in the range it explores; and without linkage
to household level exclusion measures such variables might usefully track changes in a
cohort over time but offer little insight into the causes of these changes.
Finally, Rajulton et al. (2007) proposed an approach to measure social cohesion in Canada.
They developed an overall index of social cohesion based on political (voting and
volunteering), economic (occupation, income, labour force participation) and social (social
interactions, informal volunteering) dimensions; and tested the index using data from the
National Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating (NSGVP). The study concluded
that more work was needed to select better and more appropriate indicators and a ‘more
refined conceptualization’ of the associations among the dimensions. Consistent with our
earlier comment that social cohesion is generally viewed as a population or geographic
wide phenomenon (rather than an individual experience of either exclusion or inclusion)
the unit of analysis in this study was the census metropolitan area. As the authors
themselves comment, future work “assumes that we have found the level that best
corresponds to our concept of ‘communities’ or neighbourhoods’.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 51
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
This study has considered the level of CMAs, which is not ideal but justifiable given
the limitations of social surveys, not to speak of problems of anonymity and
confidentiality. After all, CMAs are entities, each characterized with distinct
economic, political, and social features. But concentrating on CMAs leaves out the
rest of the country – the nonCMAs and, in this study, very small CMAs. Also, CMAs
vary greatly in size, and size is correlated with dimensions of social cohesion. It is
imperative that we define a level of aggregation that is not too disparate in size,
more inclusive, and yet would not pose an excessive problem either in data
collection or in preserving the confidentiality requirement (Rajulton, et al.,
2007:481).
While such an index is interesting, and could potentially enrich measures and trend
analyses of social exclusion/inclusion in Canada that use a wider set of measures, social
cohesion takes the project in a different direction approaching social exclusion/inclusion as
a collective state. This is not the way in which the literature generally conceptualizes or
approaches measurement of social exclusion (apart from measures of income inequalities
which can be said to be a social/collective state); and we do not explore this issue further
within this paper.25
25 Chakravarty and D’Ambrosio (2006), for example, discuss an axiomatic approach to social
exclusion measures. At the individual level, exclusion is measured as deprivation of that person
from different ‘social functionings’ in the society. At the aggregate level, social exclusion is
measured as the shortfalls of the functioning of different individuals. Indicators for social exclusion
should be able to capture both levels; but both sets remain individual experiences rather than
collective states.
52 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
4.3 Novel indicators
The literature contains references to several ‘outliers’ in terms of indicator novelty, some of
which included call for development of new measures. We discuss these briefly, as some
have bearing on a Canadian indicator set.
Bradshaw (2003, cited in Saunders, 2003), for example, proposed four domains of
exclusion:
1. consumption (measured by the capacity to purchase goods and services)
2. production (measured by the lack of participation in economic or social activities
3. political engagement (measured by lack of involvement in local or national decision-
making) and
4. social interaction (measured by lack of emotional integration with the community)
The last domain is fairly unique in its descriptive elements, although also difficult to
measure and, in regards to emotional integration, ambiguous in meaning.
Based on studies conducted in Britain by Hills, Le Grand and Piachaud (2002) and
Bradshaw (2004), Saunders et al. (2008) proposed a set of exclusion indicators under three
domains:
1. disengagement or lack of participation in social activities (indicators: no annual
vacation, no leisure activity for children, no participation in community activities)
2. service exclusion (indicators: exclusion from services such as health care, disability,
mental health and aged care, child care; basic household electricity, gas, water and
other utilities provided by government) and
3. economic exclusion (indicators: inadequate access to resources, savings, credit,
assets and the labour market)
The first two indicators of the first domain are fairly unique, but it is difficult to envision a
group in Canada that has no annual vacation. Lack of leisure activities is likely more useful
for local area initiatives than for national indicator sets.
There has also been a growing tendency to develop and use non-monetary material
deprivation indicators, particularly in Europe (Nolan & Whelan, 2010). Widely used non-
monetary indicators include: keeping the home adequately warm, affording a week’s
annual vacation, replacing damaged furniture, buying new rather than second-hand
clothes, eating meat or chicken or fish every second day (if so desired), or having family or
friends for a meal or drinks at least once a month (Nolan & Whelan, 2010).26 The advantage
26 Similar measures can be found in the French INESS 27 item-scale of ‘life difficulties’ discussed
earlier.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 53
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
of such indicators is the capacity to make cross-national and longitudinal comparisons,
depending on the items used in regular surveys or panel studies. It is not clear, however, if
these measures add more substantive value to, for example, more routinely encountered
measures related to income, housing or, as in Quebec, use of a market basket measure; and
they may not always be available in routine data sets.27
Church et al. (2000) argued that transport constituted a domain of social exclusion, and
proposed three transport-related indicators: distance from home to post offices, to doctor's
surgeries and to food shops. The indicators, however, do not measure mobility levels,
accessibility or the provision of public transport; and as with leisure activities for children
may be more useful in local area studies or initiatives than in a national indicator set.
Schonfelder and Axhausen (2003) advanced a completely different approach to measuring
social exclusion. They argued that the size of the activity space (number of unique locations
visited by the respondents in a time period) would predict self-confidence, active social
contact, ability and spatial knowledge. Being female, lower income and elderly (i.e. those
most often considered to be at the risk of exclusion) would likely correlate with infrequent
visits to many unique locations. They proposed an activity space measurement as an
indicator of social exclusion. While this presents a theoretically interesting approach,
estimation of a person’s activity space is a time and method intensive undertaking and of
more potential research interest than regular accounting of social exclusion.
There has also been a shift from social exclusion to cultural inclusion in policy discourses
(Long & Bramham, 2006). Coalter (2001) observes the potential of cultural activities to
provide accessible, inclusive and safe social spaces by promoting social, educational and
economic life of people in communities. Some potential indicators identified are
involvement in cultural activities and participation rates by different social groups (Long &
Bramham, 2006); and these can be found in many of the indicator sets discussed earlier in
this report.
Poor skills, poor health and low income are closely linked with exclusion from the
information society (Helsper, 2008). Using Dutton’s view of ‘digital world’ as inseparable
from the ‘real world,’ Helsper proposed an index of inclusion in four categories: ICT access;
technical skills; attitudes towards ICTs; and engagement with technologies. There is
evidence of a persisting digital divide in Canada, notably between highest and lowest
income groups, and youngest and oldest population groups (Sciadis, undated). While these
gaps may be shrinking (Statistics Canada, 2011), they persist between urban and rural
27 We recognize that, on the one hand, we are sometimes critical of frameworks or measures of
social exclusion that rely solely on existing data sets, while on the other hand cautioning about the
use of measures that may not be routinely gathered. Our concern is less about the advantages of
using routinely available data than with whether creating new measures not already being gathered
adds any substantive value to a measure of social exclusion.
54 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
settings (Marlow & McNish, 2010) and linguistic groups (O’Brien, 2001); with a striking
income divide (97%/54% use upper/lower income quartile) (Statistics Canada, 2011).
5. Developing exclusion and inclusion indicators
5.1 Strategies to selecting domains and indicators
We adopted a systematic approach to our selection of social exclusion indicators. This
involved:
1. a critical review of theoretical frameworks and their feasibility in developing
measuring approaches of exclusion and inclusion
2. assessing lessons from the experiences of the application of approaches at both
national and international levels
3. the selection of a limited set of domains along with relevant indicators and
4. examining domains and indicators in terms of their robustness and applicability in
Canadian context
Our present set attempts to balance between having too many indicators that may reduce
precision, and too few indicators that may create a risk of omitting important issues or lack
of variability between groups or over time. To be realistic in terms of their potential use,
we identified a small number of core indicators. Supplementary or secondary indicators
are also provided which give additional perspective of the relevant domain (Table 1
below). These, in turn, have been `sifted’ in terms of their policy, research and Canadian
relevance (Table 2 below).
5.2 Process of selecting domains and indicators
Our review of available studies finds a massive growth of multi-dimensional approaches of
looking at social and economic exclusion indicators, categorized under multiple domains.
However, there is no evident tendency amongst exclusion researchers and commentators
to reach a consensus on domains or indicators. As we noted earlier, the concept of
‘inclusion’ has been even less adequately discussed and understood than that of ‘exclusion’.
In many instances, inclusion has not been defined in its own right, but only in relation to
exclusion. Greater emphasis has been given to conceptualizing the terms than to
developing operational definitions and measurable indicators. Thus, while many of the
common domains found in the literature are theoretically robust, they lack appropriate
indicators for measurement purposes.
Nonetheless, as the previous section described, several attempts to develop indicators have
been made in Europe (primarily in the UK) and Australia, with several of these having been
used in research or academic discourse. While very few attempts have been made to
measure exclusion/inclusion in the Canadian context, European and Australian experiences
provide feasible starting points for refinement of domains and indicators for use in Canada
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 55
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
since they are at least high-income countries and, in the case of Australia, share much in
common historically, politically and economically. Availability of selected exclusion and
inclusion indicators in Canadian databases are presented in Appendix C. We do not,
however, recommend application of these measures to First Nations, Métis or Inuit groups
without their prior review for cultural appropriateness.28
One of the possible barriers to measure social exclusion in Canada is the lack of
comprehensive data. Available databases and records in Canada tend to exclude the
marginalized members, such as, the homeless, population in hospitals or prisons,
immigrant and refugee communities, Aboriginal populations and so on, which may lead to
quantitative under-representation of the socially-excluded (Lessof & Jowell, 2000). This
barrier can be addressed by promoting a program to conduct focused studies on the
potentially excluded populations. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are
suggested for such studies. While quantitative indicators are necessary to analyze social
exclusion and inclusion, qualitative research can help us to understand better social
exclusion by adding depth to the human experience, and by adding meaning to statistical
data.
Our approach to developing an indicator set (Table 1), and given the caveats above,
involved the following sequence of steps.
Step 1. Determining most common domains
Based on the review of multiple dimensions of exclusion and inclusion, a matrix of
appropriate domains and indicators was constructed. Given that there is no collective
agreement of the relative significance of domains (Social Inclusion Unit, 2004), we
identified and listed domains that are the most commonly encountered in the literature.
Step 2. Selecting domains with theoretical robustness
The next step we employed was to identify the most dominant set of domains that are also
theoretically robust. Our review shows that existing domains are developed from multiple
perspectives, covering overlapping issues of exclusion and inclusion. Based on the suggestion by
Atkinson et al. (2002), we used several criteria to identify our selection of domains and
indicators; specifically that they are:
based on a theoretical framework
28 Different provinces also undertake surveys and maintain databases. Since provinces have
constitutional rights and responsibilities related to several of the domains of social
exclusion/inclusion, development of provincial-level indicator sets is likely relevant and to be
encouraged. Quebec has already done so, with some of its indicator work described and referenced
earlier in this report. As the mandate of HRSDC is national, however, we focus on national databases
only in Appendix C.
56 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
clear and unambiguous
robust and statistically validated
responsive to effective policy without manipulation
comparable across countries
consistent with international standards
timely and
not burdensome to collect or assess
Step 3. Selecting domains with identified indicators
Scutella et al. (2009) recognize that not all indicators of theoretically developed domains
are appropriate to objective measurement. Several theoretically impressive paradigms on
social and economic exclusion have been developed (Levitas, 2007; Pantazis, Gordon &
Levitas, 2006; Saunders et al., 2008; Chakravarty & D’Ambrosio, 2006; Burchardt, Le Grand,
& Piachaud, 1999) although many of these were not operationalized with relevant
indicators (such as Levitas et al., 2007). This indicates a gap that needs to be addressed.
Although prioritization of domains and indicators is important (Saunders 2003), not all
indicators identified in our review are equally important in all countries, and certainly not
in Canada. The above three steps of ‘sifting’ led to our final selection of domains (Table 1).
Although many of these domains are interrelated, there is an emerging consensus is that
each of these domains should remain as a separate entity as they are difficult to aggregate
(Cantillon, 2001). We then reviewed indicators under each domain in the literature and
categorized all identified indicators into ‘core’ and ‘secondary’ on the basis of frequency or
emergent consensus. Note that this process led to sub-dividing the material resources
domain into two: one focusing on income (given its prominence in the literature) and
another on what might be considered household assets. We then focused on core indicators
only, in order to create a set of measures that met the criteria suggested by Atkinson et al.
(2002) (noted above).
Table 1. Selection of common, theoretically robust domains and indicators
Common, theoretically robust domains
Identified indicators29
Core
Secondary
Employment and work
Employment status, access to
employment, people living in
jobless households, job
security
Long-term unemployment,
ability to work, quality of
working life
29 Note that in this Table, and in Table 2, some indicators will be of social exclusion (e.g. long-term
unemployment) while others will be processes that reduce social exclusion (e.g. participation in
social security schemes)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 57
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Income and economic resources
Family income, income
poverty, level of income after
transfers, persistence of low
income, assets and savings
Access to financial services,
low economic capacity, debt,
participation in social security
schemes
Material resources (household assets)
Possession of a car, TV,
telephone, washing machine,
home PC, worn-out furniture,
access to internet
Lack of durable goods, ability
to eat meat/fish in a reference
period, ability to buy new
clothes
Education and skills
Low educational attainment,
enrolment, access to
education or training,
exclusion from school
Basic skills (literacy and
numeracy), vocational skills,
internet access, lifelong
learning
Health and well-being30
Physical health/illness,
disability, access to health
services, self-reported health
Chronic illness, depression and
anxiety, long-term illness
Housing
Homelessness, housing
quality/condition, access to
good housing, living in social
housing
Home ownership, ability to
pay rent, homes lacking
central heating, overcrowding
Social resources
Social network/ partnership,
having friends to discuss
intimate matters, access to
social institutions/programs31
Child care services, lack of
access to information, limited
contact with friends/co-
workers, separation from
family
Community resources
Community/ civic
participation, political
participation, membership of
clubs or societies, denial of
social justice/ rights or
freedoms, access to public
transportation
Access to leisure activities for
children, citizenship status,
physical environment/ quality
of neighbourhoods
Personal safety
Victim of crime, fears of
personal attack
Neighbourhood safety,
exposure to discrimination
30 Although low birth weight, accidental deaths, suicide, and premature death are frequently cited in
indicator sets, we have eliminated these as core or secondary since their usefulness is more as
measures of health inequalities at a geographic or population group level (which may arise from
social exclusion) than as indicators of either a state of social exclusion, or of processes that lead to
it.
31 Access to social institutions refers to barriers that would preclude active participation; active
participation, in turn, is a voluntary choice and is captures in the category of community resources.
58 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Step 4. Identifying indicators used in research or policy
In this step, we considered the importance of indicators that have been used in research or
policy analysis. The rationale here is that overly complex or naively simplistic measures are
less likely to be useful, whereas those that have been tested are likely to be more feasible.
Unfortunately, most of the reports consulted in this review have not provided adequate
information regarding the use of indicators in any stage of policy-making, such as
situational analyses, agenda-setting, policy framing and benchmarking. Thus, it has been
difficult to judge the suitability and usefulness of many of the indicators proposed.
Step 5. Selecting indicators used as well as evaluated
The next step was to review indicators that have not only been used in research or policy but
that have also been evaluated or assessed. The assumption here is that such an evaluation
would help to identify the most feasible domains and indicators to use in Canadian context. We
were unable to locate any actual evaluation studies of social exclusion/inclusion indicators or
indicator sets; but relied upon the quality (depth and detail) of the reflective discussions
offered by researchers and policy analysts who had developed and used these for research or
policy purposes. This led to identification of the indicators in Table 2.
Step 6. Selecting indicators relevant to Canada
Our review included careful reading of the literature that discussed the development of
domains and indicators for social exclusion and inclusion in Canada. As noted earlier, few of
these developed specific measures, the Quebec efforts being an exception. The emphases given
by Canadian reports on qualities or processes of social exclusion similar to those in more
detailed studies from Australia, the EU and the UK, however, helped us to focus our selection to
those similar measures available in Canada. Although political (and some economic) differences
exist amongst these jurisdictions (notably in the variety of welfare regimes in Europe), there are
enough similarities amongst Canada and these other settings to have some trust in the
applicability of their experience with indicators and specific measures in a Canadian context.
Table 2. Selection of indicators used in research and policy, evaluated, and relevant
to Canada
Domains with
identified indicators
Indicators
Used in research and
policy
Used and evaluated
Relevant to Canadian
context
Employment and
work
Employment status, access
to job, people living in
jobless households, long-
term unemployment,
ability to work, job
Employment status, access
to job, people living in
jobless households
Employment status,
access to job, people
living in jobless
households, long-term
unemployment, job
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 59
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
insecurity
insecurity
Income and economic
resources
Family income, access to
credit facilities, had to sell
something or borrow
money, income adequacy,
financial support from
bank, no emergency
savings, level of income
after transfers, persistence
of low income, savings,
participation in social
security schemes, income
inequaliy
Family income, access to
credit facilities, had to sell
something or borrow
money, financial support
from bank, no emergency
savings, income adequacy,
income inequality
Family income, access to
credit facilities, had to
sell something or borrow
money, persistence of
low income, household
income after transfers,
income inequality
Material resources
No access to car, TV,
phone, microwave,
telephone, worn-out
furniture, washing
machine, home PC,
internet
No access to car, TV,
microwave, telephone,
worn-out furniture, internet
No access to car, TV,
microwave, telephone,
internet
Education and skills
Enrolment, non-
attendance, years of
schooling, language
barrier, not being able to
pay school fees, low
education
Enrolment, non-attendance,
years of schooling, language
barrier, not being able to pay
school fees, low education
Enrolment, non-
attendance, years of
schooling, language
barrier
Health
Access to health services,
mortality, disability,
morbidity, mental distress,
use of health services,
adequacy of diet, long-
term illness, chronic
disease, no dental
treatment, self-reported
health
Access to health services,
mortality, disability, long-
term illness, chronic disease,
no dental treatment
Access to health services,
disability, self-reported
health
Housing
Core housing need, access
to good housing, shortages
of space, home ownership,
ability to pay rent, lack of
space, poor housing
condition
Core housing need, access to
good housing, shortages of
space
Core housing need,
access to good housing
Social resources
Social network, lack of
access to information,
access to social
institutions, no regular
social contact, no child
care services, being ethnic
minority
Social network, access to
social institutions, no
regular social contact, no
child care services, lack of
access to information
Social network, access to
social institutions, lack of
access to information
Community resources
No one to discuss intimate
matters, no diversity in
social contacts, no social
participation, denial of
rights or freedoms, access
to private or public
No one to discuss intimate
matters, no diversity in
social contacts, no social
participation, denial of
rights or freedoms, access to
private or public transport,
Denial of rights or
freedoms, access to
private or public
transport, geographic
isolation, barriers to
participation
60 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
transport, geographic
isolation, physical
environment, membership
of clubs or societies, noisy
neighbours, barriers to
participation
geographic isolation
Personal safety
Crime, discrimination,
fears of burglary or
vandalism or personal
attack
Crime, discrimination
Crime, discrimination
Step 7. Identifying relevant Canadian data sets
In this step, we have identified selected Canadian data sets, along with a draft data
dictionary (see Appendices). We have also highlighted in Appendix D particular measures
that may be suitable for routine trend analyses of social exclusion. One potential difficulty
with all such survey data, of course, is that it often fails to capture the marginalized or hard-
to-reach groups who generally are most at risk of social exclusion.
5.3 To index or not to index
Many of the studies we reviewed referenced the potential usefulness of a single index,
particularly for decision-makers, a point that has long been argued by those involved in social
indicator research (OECD, 2008). Few of the studies reviewed, however, had actually gone far in
creating an exclusion or inclusion index; and most references to indices were for poverty,
quality of life, social cohesion and related constructs. None of the combined measures we
encountered for social exclusion/inclusion dealt with the breadth of processes identified by the
literature.
Stewart (2002:42), earlier in this report, cautioned against creation of an index of social
exclusion/inclusion for precisely this reason, since “different indicators tell very different
stories.” The same argument has been made in other social exclusion studies in the UK and
Australia (e.g. Saunders, et al., 2008). Atkinson et al. (2005:141)) in a paper for the European
Commission similarly cautioned that, despite the appeal of a single number, the approach
“raises serious technical issues…and political questions,” the politics residing in the use of such
a number for international comparisons that could drive governments to focus on a single
(rather than balanced) policy intervention to raise its aggregate against others.
Moreover, constructing a composite index requires robust statistical procedures (such as
the selection of sub-indicators, choice of model, weighting indicators and treatment of
missing values); and a high quantity of quality data. This is a time-consuming process often
riddled with disagreements amongst those involved in it. As one example: the Canadian
Index of Well-being (CIW) has taken almost eight years of work, involving scores of
researchers and countless meetings before attaining a level of quality, quantity and
consensus regarded as sufficient for its release.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 61
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
The (not entirely rhetorical) question for HRSDC to consider:
How much more value would be accomplished (in terms of directing political
attention and policy gaze) by creating such an index?
Our own answer, based upon the review, is that it is probably more feasible, reasonable
and insightful to retain a smaller suite of measures for more routine analysis and
commentary, and which could be updated as new measures are developed or new forms of
data collection occur.
This is not to say that an index could not be created for specific analytical purposes,
separate from more routine analyses of trends. Using the Euro-barometer surveys, for
example, Böhnke (2004) developed a simple index of perceived social exclusion using four
subjective items (perceived worthlessness, marginalisation, uselessness and inferiority),
ranking countries by the percentage of respondents agreeing with 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 of these
items. A number of correlations and multiple regressions were then calculated for different
countries by objectively-measured processes of exclusion (such as unemployment, poverty,
GDP/capita, income level, financial difficulties, precarious employment, lack of social
support, social protection, and family support). The comparative findings support the
thesis that social exclusion (at least as perceived) is determined by more than simply
employment; but also by social protection measures, social support systems, secure living
arrangements and a lack of polarisation within countries; that is, even in conditions of high
unemployment or poverty, if the polarisation of those conditions is less – that everyone is
more or less in the same boat – the perception of exclusion is less. But this is more an
example of the value of research studies to accompany more routine trend monitoring, and
of ensuring some subjective measures in the suite of indicators.
5.4 Balance of objective and subjective measures
Townsend (1979), in his theorizing of the concept of relative deprivation, also commented on
the differing ways in which it could be measured, addressing the issue of objective and
subjective measures. He identified three deprivation measurement types: objective (when
some people lack substantially in the resources that most people have); normative (when some
people lack substantially in what is conventionally regarded as normal resources); and
individual or group subjective (when some groups perceive themselves as lacking substantially
compared to others). In Townsend’s model, objective deprivation captures some material
attribute the lack of which constitutes a threat to social inclusion. Normative and subjective
deprivations capture social and individual or group expectations of inclusion. Both types of
measures offer important insights into processes of social exclusion/inclusion, and both have
limitations. Objective deprivation measures require the identification of material attributes
essential to social inclusion – but who determines this? Normative and subjective deprivation
measures afford more scope for qualitative inquiry into what matters for people in their own
estimations, but it can also be difficult for policy interpretation. Specifically, people with
considerable resources could still experience themselves as deprived (depending on their
62 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
comparator) while those with few resources could acclimatize and resign themselves to having
less, even if objectively this creates barriers to social inclusion.
Relatively few of the indicators in Table 2 contain measures that are subjective (i.e., that are
based on perceived states or self-assessed evaluations). Self-rated literacy, health, mental
health and disability; perceived availability of services, experience of discrimination or unfair
treatment, social support, participation barriers, unfair treatment, safety; and ratings of
neighbourhood satisfaction would all qualify as subjective measures. Most measures in the data
sets we examined are objective. Given that many of the indicators in our suggested list for use
in Canada contain a variety of measures, some objective and some subjective, our
recommendation at this point (consistent with that found in the general literature on social
indicators) is that both types of measures be utilized.
5.4.1 Qualitative approaches
Related to inclusion of subjective measures is the role that qualitative approaches might
play in measuring social exclusion. Several frameworks (though not indicator sets) raised
the possibility if not the importance of utilizing robust qualitative indicators to measure
social exclusion or inclusion. It is not clear if the reference was to use of subjective
measures (perceptions) or of more detailed forms of qualitative inquiry (e.g. use of
interview data, focus groups, observation). The actual methods or feasibility of adopting
qualitative approaches were not well discussed in the literature. Difficulties in developing
qualitative indicators include selecting the domains/indicators (Social Inclusion Unit 2004)
and setting appropriate thresholds, although this applies equally to selecting quantitative
objective or subjective measures.
The Inclusive Cities Canada (ICC) initiative was the only one we encountered that described
its five domains of social inclusion as utilizing qualitative indicators (O’Hara, 2006):
1. institutional recognition of diversity (indicators: perceived effectiveness of anti-
racist policies, education programs adopted by public institutions, perceptions of
citizens about community safety, resources dedicated to crime prevention and
increased confidence in the justice system)
2. opportunities for human development (indicators: resources for public schools and
perceived quality of public school environment)
3. quality of civic engagement (indicators: perceived effectiveness of public
participation processes)
4. cohesiveness of living conditions (indicators: intra-family distribution of income,
level and duration of individual and family poverty, index of income inequality,
families in core housing need, persons in shelters or temporary accommodation)
and
5. adequacy of community services (indicators: perceived effectiveness of culturally
sensitive policies of community service organizations)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 63
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
However, the rationale for selecting qualitative indicators and the method of collecting
information of the indicators of social exclusion was not provided; and several of these
measures differ little from those proscribed by more traditional ‘objective’ quantitative sets
discussed in the previous sections.
Fréchet et al. (2009) instead suggest adopting qualitative strategies to design quantitative
process-specific indicators, while others suggest that qualitative approaches be used as a
research strategy to provide more in-depth understanding the state of exclusion amongst
groups identified as by more objective measures (Social Inclusion Unit 2004). The
usefulness in developing more detailed and nuanced accounts of the experiences of social
exclusion is already recognized by HRSDC in its call for such studies.
5.4.2 Thresholds
There is little evidence in the literature of successful efforts to establish thresholds: how
poor does one have to be to be ‘excluded’? What level of discrimination prevents
‘inclusion’? Identification of thresholds to distinguish those who are excluded from the
non-excluded is difficult, in part, because of the multidimensional nature of the measure.
Barnes et al. (2006) did construct a scoring mechanism and a ‘cut-off threshold’ for each of
the seven dimensions – social relationships, cultural and leisure activities, civic activities
(voluntary work, voting), basic services (such as health services), neighbourhood (such as
community safety), financial products (bank account, pension), and material goods
(consumer durables, central heating) – in an attempt to measure social exclusion of older
people in UK. Both the selection of indicators and the threshold points used were arbitrary,
a weakness acknowledged by the researchers. Given that “it is not possible to determine an
‘absolute’ level of exclusion on any dimension” (Barnes, et al., 2006:18), the threshold for
each dimension was set simply at the level reported by 10 percent of the sample.
Gordon et al. (2000) proposed an approach to set a poverty threshold combining social
consensus of perceived necessities and actual affordability to meet those needs of a
representative population. A special survey was required to obtain these views, where
respondents were asked to rank a long list of ‘adult necessities’ by how necessary they
thought they were, and whether they could afford to have them. Items defined as
necessities by more than 50 percent of respondents but which were lacking because of a
shortage of money were used to determine deprivation (creating a list of 21 such items).
These were used to plot the percentages of respondents reporting a lack of such
necessities, by household income. The poverty threshold was then set at a mid-point of lack
of necessities and income. The strength of this approach is that it considers the views of
population rather than judgements of the researchers regarding the necessities, and offers
a re-conceptualization of poverty based upon such views. It arguably comes closer to an
approximation of relative poverty than measures such as the Canadian LICO. Its practicable
application to Canada, or to measures of social exclusion, however, is not obvious; and may
be captured by the use of market basket measures.
64 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
In both attempts to create thresholds, researchers had to undertake special studies. This
raises issues of expense and replicability of defining and using thresholds over time. Our
advice is not to pursue thresholds for exclusion/inclusion indicators at this time.32
5.5 Similar projects undertaken by others in Canada33
1. Adler Institutes for Social Change works to promote a more inclusive society in
which all will be benefited from the available resources and opportunities. One of
the three areas of activities is conducting research ‘to identify the structural origins
of social disadvantage and to inform structural approaches to change’.
[http://www.adler.edu/about/ISE.asp]
2. Laidlaw Foundation provides research support to promote active participation of
young people through inclusive engagement. [http://www.laidlawfdn.org/mission-
vision-values]
3. Ontario Social Development Council Quality of Life index developed an index of
Quality of Life for Ontario to monitor key indicators of social, health, environmental
and economic dimensions of life.
[http://qli.spno.ca/english1/reports/pdf/qlispring2000.pdf]
32 There is perhaps one exception related to income inequality. Considerable literature of the effects
of income inequality on health has been generated in recent years, the best known work now being
The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett (2010). A book written for a popular audience, The Spirit
Level has drawn considerable methodological criticism based on its reliance upon correlation data,
selection of countries, selection of data sets and outcomes (dependent variables) under study. A
recent review of the income inequality literature (Rowlingson, 2011) carefully assessed the
strengths and weaknesses of all of the studies and arguments surrounding income inequality and
concluded that, limitations notwithstanding, the basic conclusion of Wilkinson’s and Pickett’s book
(that income inequalities beyond a certain level are socially harmful) remains robust. One
dependent variable (social immobility, which could be considered a proxy for social exclusion) had
a very high correlation coefficient for both OECD and UN data sets. The more unequal societies are
in income distribution, the less mobility exists for its members. Although no threshold was found
for this effect, a threshold for one of the most important dependent variables (life expectancy) was
found, suggesting that when the Gini coefficient for income rises above 0.3 excess mortality ensues.
Kondo et al. (2009) suggest that as much as 9.6 percent of adult mortality (15-60 age group) in
OECD countries could be averted by reducing the Gini coefficient to below 0.3. (The Gini coefficient
in 2005 in Canada was 0.32 and, with rapidly rising income disparities since 2005, is likely now
much higher.)
33 As identified in our first deliverable and included here for information purpose only.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 65
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
4. Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL): Under the Community Inclusion
Initiative (CII), CACL supports a number of inclusion-oriented projects in promoting inclusion of
people with disabilities and their families. [http://www.cacl.ca/english/index.asp]
6. Gaps and priorities
6.1 Gaps in measurement and research needs
6.1.1 Measurement gaps
One of the gaps commonly described in indicator research in Canada is the relative lack of
relevant data. Statistics Canada routinely conducts a large number of social surveys on
several issues related to social exclusion/inclusion, and which cover representative
samples of the entire population. The use of such data in social exclusion studies may be
inappropriate because the measures may not fit well with theorizing on social
exclusion/inclusion. Often administrative data capture the information needed to
administer a specific program only; that is, the surveys or data gathering are designed and
operated for a specific purpose. The content and structure of data that might fit with a
particular domain indicator of social exclusion/inclusion can vary considerably across
administrative sets, as our Appendix D shows.
Our review also identified a few priority areas where additional (and more appropriate)
indicators should be developed. These indicators fall into several domains including
income, education and housing.
In the domain of income and wealth, income remains the most widely used indicator
although it is recognized that it does not clearly reflect household resources or living
standards (Nolan 2003). The UNDP (2010a) proposed a wider multidimensional poverty
index (MPI) that substantially improves monetary measures of poverty by considering
multiple deprivations and their overlaps. While there is emerging international consensus
on the MPI, and as we noted earlier in the report, the indicators proposed are not generally
sensitive to most wealthy nations except for a smaller group of Aboriginal populations in
countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. It would be possible to
substitute more relevant and discriminatory indicators within the UNDP’s broad
dimensions of deprivation, drawing from those identified in the studies we have reviewed;
although this returns the discussion to the merits (or limitations) of adopting a single index
measure.
Regarding the area of education, Nolan (2003) argues the need to develop indicators to
measure functional literacy and numeracy as these conditions have a direct relationship
with social exclusion. The indicators should capture the regional and cross-cultural
variations in literacy. Such surveys in Canada are only episodic at this time. Another gap is
in measures of lifelong learning or learning opportunities. The potential measure for this
66 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
(‘person receives training’) is presently only routinely captures through the Longitudinal
Survey of Immigrants to Canada.
Within the housing domain, homelessness as an indicator of social exclusion has been well
established. However, measuring homelessness is difficult as a large segment of homeless,
for example, those in prisons, orphanages, or people living in precarious accommodation
are always not included in the conventional estimates of homelessness. This requires
adding a new indicator to capture those people living in the streets, old age homes, prisons
and orphanages.
There appears to be relatively few direct measures of ‘access to institutions’ – an important
domain in many of the frameworks reviewed and which refers to structural barriers to
public institutions, programs and services. This is an area where refinement of existing
measures (or creation of a new one) might be considered; although the range of potential
barriers (geography, transport, cost and so on) is potentially large and overlaps with other
domains related to income and material resources.
Although several measures of social participation exist, the only measures of political
participation are those gathered through polling. Elections Canada reports on voter turnout
for federal elections, broken down by province; but this is a fairly crude measure that does
not allow for analysis by other states of processes of exclusion. Special studies are
occasionally released tracking, for example, youth voting patterns (Barnes, 2010); and
studies combining census data and measures from the Ethnic Diversity Survey
(administered only once) provide some insight into immigrant voting patterns (Jedwab,
2006). Whether voting patterns are a reasonable measure of political participation (in the
absence of studies that examine why voting patterns exist as they do) is a debatable point.
Several of the frameworks and indicators (though not necessarily measures) referenced
the importance of human rights as a source of inclusion, or the absence of such rights as a
form of exclusion. No measures to track compliance with human rights exist in Canada. One
approach to create such a measure could use Supreme Court rulings related to the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom; but Canada is also a state party to several
international covenants on human rights, notably the International Covenants on Civil and
Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
State obligations under these international covenants overlap considerably with processes
of social exclusion/inclusion (e.g. in health, education, employment, discrimination and so
on). Canada’s obligations are periodically reviewed by a UN Committee mandated to report
on countries’ ‘progressive realization’ of the full enjoyment of these rights. Such reviews
could form the basis for a qualitative account of progress towards reducing social
exclusion, alongside the exclusion/inclusion indicators that capture trends pertinent to
certain human rights obligations. Incorporating a human rights analysis adds a new and
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 67
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
different aspect to more conventional exclusion measures of political participation, which
generally devolve to tallying up voting rates.34
Finally, although most conceptual models of deprivation and social exclusion have adopted
multiple dimensions and indicators, they have tended to overlook the heterogeneity of the
populations in terms of gender, age, ethnicity, and culture, and the complexity of using
current indicators in developing public policies. For example, material deprivation
indicators have not adequately differentiated across populations. Similarly, current
inclusion approaches are not culturally sensitive enough to address the needs of racial
minority children living in poverty. We have reviewed the capacity and appropriateness of
most commonly used domains and indicators in Canadian context and propose to consider
the following dimensions while developing exclusion and inclusion indicators:
a. Life-cycle: Indicators should not only capture current conditions of exclusion and
inclusion but should reflect life-cycle transitions and consider the potential risks of
exclusion that may affect in future (Mitchell & Shillington, 2002; Abe, 2009).
b. Gender and equity dimension: Adopting an equity or gender lens would provide a
new way of examining the determinants of exclusion, including attention to issues of
powerlessness and voicelessness; economic vulnerability; and, diminished life
experiences and limited life prospects. At present, we have incorporated this only to
the extent that our indicators can be disaggregated by sex and by a number of equity
stratifiers.
c. Cultural diversity: Cultural diversity needs to be considered while developing the
operational indicators. Not only will understandings of social inclusion vary
between cultural groups (though processes of exclusion may be similar), cultural
identities important during early periods of migration and transition may lead to
intentional forms of exclusion from dominant cultural norms or expectations. As
well, normative indicators may not capture the differential experiences of some
groups, where constrained choices may lead to outcomes contrary to social
inclusion (in the short term) but perhaps beneficial in the long term (Brown, et al.,
2008).35
34 As our Appendix A shows, the only regularly available indicator for political rights at this time
describes non-eligibility to vote – a measure of obvious limited interpretive value.
35 The example given is of poor families in Nigeria institutionalizing their child (a form of exclusion)
due to inability to care for the child and with the hope that the child could acquire skills benefiting
it (and its inclusion) as an adult. While not directly pertinent to Canada today, it resonates with the
rationales offered in defense of the now-discredited practice of residential schools for Aboriginal
children, which raises the question of interpretation. Even in the Nigerian case, should the
constrained choice of poor families not be viewed as enforced exclusion? At the same time it
cautions against a ‘one size fits all’ with respect to attribution of why some people make choices
that normative measures discern as either excluding or including; and underscores again the value
of accompanying research studies probing in qualitative depth some of these contextualized
experiences.
68 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
d. Context: The differences in understanding the meaning of exclusion and inclusion
across social and cultural contexts need to be appreciated in developing the
analytical framework. For example, an approach to reduce social and community
deprivations (such as inaccessibility to social network, gender stereotyping, or
denial of freedoms) may not be understood the same way in all social contexts.
6.1.2 Research needs
As alluded to earlier, an indicator set does not necessarily provide the level of
understanding of an important phenomenon in itself. Not only is there interpretation in its
selection; but also in whatever inferences might be drawn from the trends the different
measures track. Often these inferences risk becoming best-‘guesstimates,’ drawing on a mix
of theory and past knowledge on the part of whomever is making them rather than on a
richer empirical base. Simply put: good research can shed important analytical light on
what even the best indicator set is able to measure.
As one example: Lombe and Sherraden (2008), argue that many of the measures used in
social exclusion monitoring are unlikely to capture the specific issues/needs facing
particular groups at greatest risk of exclusion: youth, people with disabilities, elderly and
ethnocultural minorities. Their interest lay primarily in reviewing evidence for how
improving the participation of these groups in policy processes that affect their lives could
become an important means of their broader social inclusion. They offer several examples
of potential measures of policy participation, from laws and regulations mandating or
promoting such participation, to information dissemination, civil society group activism,
voting rates and, importantly, individual experiences of engagement in the policy process.
While their article is largely descriptive, it underscores the importance of research studies
(rather than routine monitoring) to examine via case studies, comparative studies or quasi-
experimental interventions how such participation occurs, and what its impacts might be
on reducing social exclusion for marginalized groups.
Lombe’s and Sherraden’s interest in participation (which remains one of the key domains
in most social exclusion frameworks) extends to an interest in a participatory approach to
examining social exclusion itself. This approach to exculsion/inclusion has been promoted
largely in UK. The approach can embrace participatory research, in which research
‘subjects’ participate in the study design; or participatory action research, in which the
research and its design is driven by certain desired social actions – in this instance,
perhaps, encompassing the ‘advocacy’ or political dimension that some social inclusion
models add to the understanding of social exclusion. Participatory research approaches
have been suggested as particularly useful for providing greater insight into the
perceptions and experiences of poor and vulnerable groups, and identifying excluded
individuals, their location and nuanced characteristics of their exclusion. The approach
does have limitations, including low coverage of any population group, the risk that the
data will be biased due to the influence of a few strong individuals, and unequal power
relations amongst group members.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 69
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
7. Summary and conclusions
This review has examined the concepts of social exclusion and inclusion with the intent of
providing some guidance as to how these might be measured in a fashion useful to guide
policy deliberations in Canada. In undertaking this review, we explored the origins of these
concepts in policy discourse, and how they both embodied and attempted to extend beyond
measures of poverty and deprivation (whether absolute or relative) to capture more of the
processes by which people and groups experience exclusion: an inability to participate in
economic, social, political and cultural activities at a level considered to be normatively
acceptable.
The concepts have an older lineage than their emergence in the 1970s, but became a focus
for theorizing and later measurement as socioeconomic dislocations appeared to be
creating more cleavages within societies than could be understood by reference to income
(poverty) or material goods (deprivation) alone. There is much disagreement amongst
writers on the concepts as to what, in simple terms, they mean, although some emergent
consensus that they imply that individuals (households and their members) have:
access to material resources (including housing)
income to afford such material resources and engage in non-material activities
(such as vacation, socializing)
access to formal labour markets (partly as a means of income generation)
access to education and health care
freedom from discrimination (including victimization or lack of personal safety)
opportunities for social participation (including removal of barriers to such
participation)
opportunities to give voice to the policy choices of governments affecting all of these
conditions
The adequacy of access, freedom and opportunities in what this report came to describe as
domains or processes of exclusion/inclusion remains relative, based upon what is
considered sufficient in each for normal social functioning. Most continental and
Francophone Canadian literature on social exclusion emphasized material and labour
market attachment; other literature (primarily UK and Australian, to a lesser and more
abstract extent, Anglophone Canadian) underscored the importance of non-material
phenomena such as discrimination and political participation. There was concern
expressed in much of the literature (even that which emphasized employment as a key
feature of social inclusion) that exclusion was more than detachment from the formal
labour market. A few articles even cautioned that it was important to consider what kind of
society policy makers and program planners were attempting to make more inclusive; that
wilful exclusion in some instances could be seen as a rationale act of political voice. Almost
all of the material we reviewed highlighted that the multidimensionality of the concepts
made them difficult to measure, or even to find agreement on what it is that should be
measured.
70 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Thus, to move from theorizing to measurement, we undertook a careful review of recent
frameworks that had been developed to capture what researchers and/or policy analysts
considered to be the different domains or processes of exclusion/inclusion. Our interest lay
in those frameworks that had some theoretical backdrop to their creation, some attempt to
define indicators and even measures for their identified domains, and some evidence of
their use either in research or in policy, particularly if this included some evaluation or
careful reflection of such use. It became apparent that, although little agreement on
definitions existed, there was considerable overlap amongst domains and a reasonable
degree of cross-referencing of frameworks as time went on and efforts to model and
measure social exclusion/inclusion became more nuanced. While some of these
frameworks were labeled social exclusion and others social inclusion, there was actually
little difference between them. The processes they identified either excluded or included by
their presence or absence, depending on how the domain was described. We found little
reason in the theoretical and framework literature to consider the two concepts as neatly
discrete rather than simply inverse. The exceptions were that the inclusion literature gave
greater emphasis to non-material social processes and to a values- or advocacy-driven
agenda of ensuring that people had what they needed to be ‘included’.
The review of frameworks led to our adaptation of domains and indicators in a revised
conceptual framework, and then to a review of indicators with which to populate it. Again,
we turned to those frameworks and indicators that had been used; and used in contexts
that were relevant (socioeconomically, socio-demographically) to Canada. This allowed us
to select a reasonably succinct number of indicators (34) for use in Canada, grouped
according to the domains in our revised conceptual framework.
Having created such a list, we turned to the issue of indexing. Drawing from the literature
we had reviewed, we argued that an index would pose more methodological and policy
questions than a clustering of indicators – a hierarchic list – might more clearly and easily
address. We also called for a balance of objective and subjective measures, and discussed
the importance of qualitative approaches (studies) that would provide in-depth
understandings of how people experienced processes of exclusion/inclusion. We discussed
the few efforts to establish thresholds for some of the commonly identified domains, noting
that none offered guidance for purposes of establishing such thresholds at this time. We
finally noted a number of measurement gaps and research needs, although none of these
would preclude trend analyses of social exclusion/inclusion in Canada drawing from the
available data bases which we identified in our Appendices.
Indeed, we highlighted a number of specific measures in those data bases that could be
used to map trends, and recommend that HRSDC consider testing these measures by doing
so. With trend analyses in hand, the suite of measures we have suggested could be taken
forward to a broader group of interested stakeholders in a form of face validation; always
bearing in mind that the idea of social exclusion/inclusion is a powerful one, but one that
attains its power and its meaning by dint of how people choose to construct it.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 71
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
This review may provide grounds for some consensus on, if not a simple definition, at least
some common grounds upon which these ideas rest; but these grounds may shift over time
and may not be universally seen in the same light.
72 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
RE FERENC ES AND BIBLIOGRAP HY
Aasland, A. and T. Fløtten (2001). “Ethnicity and Social Exclusion in Estonia and Latvia”,
Europe-Asia Studies, 53(7):1023-1049.
Abe, A. (2009). “Social Exclusion and Earlier Disadvantages: An Empirical Study of Poverty
and Social Exclusion in Japan”, Social Science Japan Journal, 13(1):5–30.
Aber, J. (2002). Social Exclusion of Children in the U.S.: Compiling Indicators of Factors
From Which and By Which Children Are Excluded, New York: Mailman School of Public
Health, Columbia University. [http://www.childpolicyintl.org/publications/Aber.pdf]
Alkire, S. (2002). "Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction,"
OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199245796.
Aldeghi, I., Jauneau, P. and C. Olm (2009). Indicateurs d’alerte sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion:
enquête aurès d’acteurs de terrain, (ONPES).
Aldeghi, I., Jauneau, P. and C. Olm (2010). Repérage des sources statistiques et propositions
d’indicateurs d’alerte sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion, Les Travaux de l’Observatoire.
Atkinson, A., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E. and B. Nolan (2002). Social indicators: The EU and
social inclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson A., Marlier, E., and B. Nolan (2004). “Indicators and Targets for Social Inclusion in
the European Union”, JCMS 42(1):47–75.
Atkinson, A., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E. and B. Nolan (2005). Taking Forward the EU Social
Inclusion Process. An Independent Report commissioned by the Luxembourg Presidency of
the Council of the European Union, Luxembourg: The Government of Luxembourg.
Bailey, N., Spratt, J., Pickering, J., Goodlad, R., and M. Shucksmith (2004). Deprivation and
social exclusion in Argyll and Bute. Report to the Community Planning Partnership. Scottish
Centre for Research on Social Justice, Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen.
Baker, J. (2001). “Social Exclusion in Urban Uruguay”, in E. Gacitua-Mario and Q. Wodon
(eds)
Measurement and Meaning. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods for the
Analysis of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Latin America, Washington DC: The World
Bank.
Barnes, A. (2010). Youth Voter Turnout in Canada. Ottawa: Parliament of Canada.
Publication 2010-19E. [http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-
19-e.htm].
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 73
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Barnes, M. (2005). Social exclusion in Great Britain: An empirical investigation and
comparison with the EU, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Barnes, M., Blom A., Cox, K. and Carli Lessof (2006). “The Social Exclusion of Older People:
Evidence from the first wave of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA).” Final
Report. Prepared for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Social Exclusion Unit.
National Centre for Social Research, and, Alan Walker, University of Sheffield.
Barry, B. (2002). ‘Social exclusion, social isolation and the distribution of income’, in Hills J,
Le Grand J and Piachaud D (eds), Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bask, M. (2005). “Welfare problems and social exclusion among immigrants in Sweden”,
European Sociological Review, 21, 73–89.
Bask, M. (2007). Social exclusion across the life-course: A look at Swedish data. Umea°:
Umea° University.(Version: November 15, 2007).
Bask, M., (2010), "Increasing Inequality in Social Exclusion Occurrence: The Case of Sweden
During 1979–2003", Social Indicators, 97: 299–323.
Beall, J. (2002). “Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with
lessons from Africa and Asia”, Environment & Urbanization, 14(1):41-51.
Belgique (Gouvernement de) (2010). Rapport stratégique sur la protection sociale et
l’inclusion sociale 2008-2010. [http://www.mi-
is.be/sites/default/files/doc/Strategisch%20rapport%20inzake%20sociale%20beschermi
ng%20en%20insluiting%202008-2010%20FR.pdf].
Berger-Schmitt, R. and H. Noll (2000). Conceptual framework and structure of a European
system of social indicators. EuReporting Working Paper No. 9, Mannheim: Centre for
Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA).
Berman, Y. and D. Phillips (2000). "Indicators of Social quality and social exclusion at
national and community level", Social Indicators Research, 50: 329–350.
Bernard, P. (1999). Social Cohesion: A Critique, Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network,
Discussion Paper No.F-09.
Bhalla, A. and F. Lapeyre (2004). Poverty and exclusion in a global world. New York :
Palgrave Macmillan.
74 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Böhnke, P. (2004). Perceptions of social integration and exclusion in an enlarged Europe.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
[www.eurofound.eu.int/qual_life]
Bourguignon, F. and S. Chakravarty (2003). “The measurement of multidimensional
poverty”, Journal of Economic Inequality, 1: 25–49.
Bradshaw, J. and N. Finch (2003). “Overlaps in dimensions of poverty”, Journal of Social
Policy, 32: 513–525.
Brown, I., Ajuwon, P., Wang, M., Vahakuopus, J (2008). “Is Social Inclusion Always a Good
Idea?”, Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 14(2):
Brunner, E., and Marmot, M. G. (1999), Social organization, stress, and health, in M. Marmot
and R. Wilkinson (eds) Social Determinants of Health, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., Piachaud, D. (1999) "Social Exclusion in Britain 1991-1995",
Social
Policy and Administration 33(3):227-244.
Burchardt, T. (2000). “Social Exclusion: Concepts and Evidence”, in D. Gordon and P.
Townsend (eds) Breadline Europe. The Measurement of Poverty, Bristol: Policy Press.
Bryant, T., Raphael, D., Schrecker, T. And R. Labonte (2010). “Canada: A land of missed
opportunity for addressing the social determinants of health”, Health Policy 101(1):44-58.
Byrne, D. (1997). “Social exclusion and capitalism”, Critical Social Policy, 17:27–51.
Byrne, D. (2005). Social exclusion, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Callan, T., Nolan, B., and C. Whelan (1993). “Resources deprivation and the measurement of
poverty”, Journal of Social Policy, 22 (2):141-172.
Cameron, C. (2006). “Geographies of welfare and exclusion: Social Inclusion and Exception”,
Progress in Human Geography, 30(3): 396–404.
Cantillon, B. (2001). Properties: Criteria for Choosing Indicators for Social Inclusion,
Conference on Indicators for Social Exclusion, European Commission.
Carr, M. and M. Chen (2004). Globalization, social exclusion and work: with special
reference to informal employment and gender, Working Paper No. 20. Policy Integration
Department. World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 75
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Castel, R. (1991). “De l’indigence a l’exclusion: la desaffiliation”, in J. Donzelot (ed), Face a
l’exclusion: Le modele fancais, Paris: Editions Esprit.
CEPE, (2009). Prendre La Mesure De La Pauvrete. Proposition D’Indicateurs De Pauvrete,
D’Inegalites Et D’Exclusion Sociale Afin De Mesurer Les Progres Realises Au Quebec, Centre
d’étude sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion Direction de la recherche, de l’évaluation et de la
statistique, Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale Québec (Québec).
Chakravarty S., and C. D’Ambrosio (2006). “The measure of social exclusion,” Review of
Income and Wealth 52(3):377-398.
Church, A., Frost, M. and K. Sullivan K (2000). “Transport and social exclusion in London”,
Transport Policy, 7:195 - 205.
Coalter, F (2001). Realising the Potential of Cultural Services. The Case for Sport. London:
LGA Publications.
Confédération des syndicaux nationaux (1995). Développer l’économie solidaire, Montreal:
CSN.
Crenner, E., et Dumartin, S. (2003). « Pauvreté et indicateurs de conditions de vie en
France », Santé, Société et Solidarité, Québec, Revue de l’Observatoire franco-québécois de
la
santé et de la solidarité, no 1, p. 115-126.
Cushing, P. (2003). Policy Approaches to Framing Social Inclusion and Social Exclusion: An
Overview, Toronto: The Roeher Institute.
Daly, A. (2006). Social Inclusion and Exclusion among Australia’s Children: A Review of the
Literature, Discussion Paper no 62, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling,
University of Canberra. [www.natsem.canberra.edu.au].
Daly, A., McNamara, J., Tanton, R., Harding, A. and M. Yap (2008). “Indicators of Risk of
Social Exclusion for Children in Australian Households: An Analysis by State and Age
Group”,
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 14(2):133-154.
Deaton, A. (2010). Price indexes, inequality, and the measurement of world poverty.
American Economics Association Presidential Address.
[http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/presidential%20address%2019january
%202010%20all.pdf]
de Haan, A. (1999). Social exclusion: Towards an holistic understanding of deprivation.
Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. London: Department for
76 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
International Development.
[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/documents/public
ations/sdd9socex.pdf]
Dertwinkel, T. (2008). “Economic Exclusion of Ethnic Minorities: On the Importance of
Concept Specification”, European Centre for Minority Issues. ECMI Brief #19.
Edward, P. (2006). ”The Ethical Poverty Line: a moral quantification of absolute poverty”,
Third World Quarterly, 27(2):377-393.
Estivill, J. (2003). Concepts and Strategies for Combating Social Exclusion: An overview.
Portugal: International Labour Office.
European Commission (2001). Draft Joint Report on Social Exclusion. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission, (2005). Regional indicators to reflect social exclusion and poverty,
Policy Studies Findings 4, European Communities.
[http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social_inclusion/studies_en.htm].
European Commission, (2009). Portfolio of the indicators for the monitoring of the
European strategy for social protection and social inclusion – 2009 update,
[http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=756&langId=en].
European Union, (2004). Joint report by the Commission and the Council on social
inclusion. Council (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs). Council
(Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs),
[http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-
incl/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf].
European Union, (2010). Rapport sur la pauvreté et l'exclusion sociale,
[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_321_fr.pdf]
Eurostat, (2010). Combating poverty and social exclusion. A statistical portrait of the
European Union.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
Fay, B. (1987). Critical Social Science: Liberation and Its Limits, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Feres, P., Immervoll, H., Lietz, C., Levy, H., Mantovani, D. and H. Sutherland (2002).
Indicators for Social Inclusion in the European Union: how responsive are they to macro-
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 77
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
level changes? EUROMOD Working Paper No. EM3/02
[http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/euromod/em3-02.pdf]
Figueiredo A., Altamirano, T. and D. Sulmont (1995). Social exclusion and inequality in Peru.
ILO Regional Office.
Fraser C (2003) Evidence to the MIND Inquiry 'Creating accepting communities', cited in
Grove, G (2008) Mental capital and wellbeing: making the most of ourselves in the 21st
century: state-of-science review: Factors influencing recovery from serious mental illness and
enhancing participation in family, social and working life. (Commissioned as part of the UK
Government's Foresight Project). London: Government Office for Science.
Fréchet, G., Lanctôt, P. and A. Morin (2009). Taking the Measure of Poverty. Proposed
Indicators of Poverty, Inequality and Social Exclusion to Measure Progress in Quebec. Advise
to the Minister. Centre d’étude sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion. Québec City: Ministère de
l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale.
Freiler C. 2002. The Context for Social Inclusion. Toronto: Laidlaw Foundation.
[www.laidlaw.org]
Gadrey, J., Jany-Catrice F. et al. (2005). Les nouveaux indicateurs de richesse, Paris, Editions
La Découverte, Collection « Repères ».
Gagnon, É. and Y. Pelchat (2007). Reconnaître l’exclusion sociale. Working paper presented
to the Centre d’étude sur la pauvreté et l’exclusion. Québec City: Centre de santé et de
services sociaux de la Vieille-Capitale, Direction générale adjointe, mission universitaire.
Gallie, D., Paugam, S., and S. Jacobs (2000). “Unemployment, poverty and social isolation: Is
there a vicious circle of social exclusion?”, European Societies, 5:1–32.
George, L. (2001). “The social psychology of health”, in R. Binstock and L. George (eds)
Handbook of aging and the social sciences (5th ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gijsbers, G. and C. Vrooman (2007). Explaining Social Exclusion. A theoretical model tested
in the Netherlands. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Gordon, D. et al. (2000). Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Gore, C. and J. Figueiredo (eds) (1997). “Social exclusion and anti-poverty policy: A debate”,
International Institute for Labour Studies. Research Series 110. International Labour
Organization.
78 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Government Offices of Sweden. (2003). Sweden’s action plan against poverty and social
exclusion 2003–2005.
[http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/42/04/81d24d2b.pdf. Accessed Oct. 2010].
Grove, B. (2008). Mental Capital and Wellbeing: Making the most of ourselves in the 21st
century. State-of-Science Review: SR-B9 commissioned as part of the UK Government’s
Foresight Project.
Hallerod, B. (1996). “Deprivation and Poverty: A Comparative Analysis of Sweden and
Great”, Acta Sociologica, 39: 141-168.
Hancock, T., Labonté, R. and R. Edwards (1999). “Indicators that Count: Measuring
Population Health at the Community Level”, Canadian Journal of Public Health S22-S26.
Headey, B. (2006). A Framework for Assessing Poverty, Disadvantage and Low Capabilities in
Australia, Melbourne Institute Report No. 6, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and
Social Research, Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Health Canada (2002). An Inclusion Lens. Workbook for Looking at Social and Economic
Exclusion and Inclusion. Population and Public Health Branch, Atlantic Region.
Helsper, E. (2008). Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information
Society. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute (OII).
Hills, J., J. Le Grand, and D. Piachaud. (Eds). (2002). Understanding Social Exclusion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houdart, P., Malye, F., and Vincent, J. (2004). “France d’en bas, France d’en haut Le grand
écart,” Le Point 16 Dec. Pp.84-6.
Howarth, C., Kenway, P., Palmer, G. and C. Street (1998), Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion:
Labour's Inheritance, York: New Policy Institute/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
HRDC, (1998). “Social indicators: What are they all about”, Applied Research Bulletin,
3(1):++.
[http://www.hrdcdrch.gc.ca/hrdc/corp/str.te/publish/bulletin/vol3n1/v3n1c14e.html].
Jackson, C. (1999). “Social Exclusion and Gender: Does One Size Fit All?” The European
Journal of Development Research, 11(1):125-146.
Jarvis, M. and J. Wardle (1999). “Social patterning of individual health behaviours: The case
of cigarette smoking”, in M. Marmot and R. Wilkinson (eds) Social Determinants of Health,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 79
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Jedwab, J. (2006). “The ‘roots’ of immigrant and ethnic voter participation in Canada,”
Electoral Insight December.
[http://www.elections.ca/res/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=143&lang=e&frmPageSiz
e=].
Jehoel-Gijsberg, G. and C. Vrooman (2007). Explaining Social Exclusion: A Theoretical Model
Tested in the Netherlands, The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research, CPRN Study
No. F/03. Canadian Policy Research Network, Inc.
Jenson, J. (2007). “The European Union’s Citizenship Regime. Creating Norms and Building
Practices”, Comparative European Politics, 5():53–69.
Kamerman, S. and A. Kahn (2003). Beyond Child Poverty: The Social Exclusion of Children.
The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies.
Columbia University [http://www.childpolicyintl.org/issuebrief/issuebrief6.pdf].
Kerr, D. and R. Beaujot (2001). "Child Poverty and Family Structure In Canada," PSC
Discussion Papers Series, 15(7), Article 1. [Available at:
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/pscpapers/vol15/iss7/1]
Klasen, S. (2000). “Measuring Poverty and Deprivation in South Africa”, Review of Income
and Wealth, 46(1):33-58.
Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., and H. Choi (2011). The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old
Critiques. Human Development Research Paper 2011/01, United Nations Development
Programme.
Kondo, N., Sembajwe, G., Kawachi, I., van Dam, R., Subramanian, S. and Yamagata, Z. (2009).
“Income Inequality, Mortality and Self-Rated Health,” British Medical Journal, 339, b4471.
Labonté, R. (2003). “Social inclusion/exclusion: Dancing the dialectic”, Health Promotion
International, 19(1):115-21.
Labonté, R., (2010) (ed.) Forgotten Families: Globalization and the Health of Canadians,
Ottawa: Collection d’études transdisciplinaires en santé des populations/Transdisciplinary
Studies in Population Health Series. 2010. ISBN 1922-1398.
Laidlaw Foundation, (2002). The Laidlaw Foundation’s Perspective on Social Inclusion,
Toronto: The Laidlaw Foundation.
Lessof, C. and R. Jowell (2000). Measuring Social Exclusion. Working Paper Number 84. The
Centre for Research into Elections and Social Trends. Oxford: University of Oxford.
80 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Levitas, R. (1998). The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour, Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Levitas, R. (1999). “Defining and measuring social exclusion: A critical overview of current
proposal”, Radical Statistics, 71 [http://www.radstats.org.uk/no071/article2.htm].
Levitas (2003). “The Idea of Social Inclusion”, Social Inclusion Research Conference.
[http://www.ccsd.ca/events/inclusion/papers/rlevitas.htm].
Levitas, R. 2006. The concept and measurement of social exclusion.” In C. Pantazis, D.
Gordon and R. Levitas (eds) Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol, The Policy
Press.
Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E. and D. Patsios (2007). The Multi
Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion, A Research Report for the Social Exclusion Task
Force, [Available: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force/
publications/multidimensional.aspx].
Lombe, M. and M. Sherraden (2008). “Inclusion in the Policy Process: An Agenda for
Participation of the Marginalized”, Journal of Policy Practice, 7(2):199 - 213.
Long, J. and P. Bramham (2006). “Joining up policy discourses and fragmented practices:
the precarious contribution of cultural projects to social inclusion?”, Policy & Politics,
34(1):133–51.
Lynch, J., et al. (2000). “Income inequality and mortality: Importance to health of individual
income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions”, BMJ, 320:1220–1224.
Mandel, S. (2006). Debt relief as if people mattered. A rights-based approach to debt
sustainability. New Economics Foundation. Rethinking International finance paper 1.
[http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Debt_Relief_as_if_People_
Mattered.pdf]
Marlier, E., Atkinson, A., Cantillon, B. and B. Nolan (2007). Social indicators: The EU and
social inclusion: Facing the challenge, Bristol: the Policy Press.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 81
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Marlier, E., Cantillion, B., Nolan, B., Bosch, K. and T. Rie (2009). Developing and learning
from measures of social inclusion in the European Union,
[http://umdcipe.org/conferences/oecdumd/conf_papers/Papers/Marlier_Cantillion_Nolan
_VandenBosch.pdf].
Marlow, I. and J. McNish (2010). “Canada's digital divide”, The Globe and Mail, April 2, 2010.
[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-digital-
divide/article1521631/]
Marmot, M. (2004). Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health
and Life Expectancy, London: Bloomsbury.
Masters, J. and T. Wickstrom (2006). Defining and Measuring Poverty: Challenges and
Opportunities. Center for Community Futures. Draft 10.
McCrystal P, Higgins. K. and A. Percy (2000). “Measuring social exclusion: a lifespan
approach”, Radical Statistics,
MESS, (2006). Recueil statistique sur la pauvreté et les inégalités socioéconomiques au
Québec. Québec: Institut de la statistique du Québec.
Miliband, D. (2006). Social Exclusion: The Next Steps Forward. London: Centre for Analysis
of Social Exclusion, London: LSE an ESRC Research Centre.
Mitchell, A. and R. Shillington (2002). Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion, Toronto: The
Laidlaw Foundation.
Morasse, J. (2005). Inventaire des indicateurs de pauvreté et d’exclusion sociale, Québec,
Institut de la statistique du Québec et ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale.
Noble, M., Smith, G., Wright, G. Dibben, C. and M. Lloyd (2001). The Northern Ireland
Multiple Deprivation Measure 2001, Occasional Paper No. 18, Belfast: Northern Ireland
Statistics and Research Agency.
Noble, M., Wright, G., Dibben C., Smith, G. McLennan, D. Anttila, C. Barnes, H. Mokhtar, C.,
Noble, S., Avenell, D., Gardner, J., Covizzi, I., and M. Lloyd (2004). The English Indices of
Deprivation 2004, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Nolan, B. 2003. Social Indicators in the European Union. Paper for the Statistics Users’
Conference on Measuring Government Performance, London.
Nolan, B. and C. Whelan (2010). “Using Non-Monetary Deprivation Indicators to Analyze
Poverty and Social Exclusion: Lessons from Europe?”, Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 29(2):305–325.
82 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Novick, M. (2011). Social Inclusion: The Foundation of a National Policy Agenda, [Available:
http://www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/mn.htm].
Nunes, C. (2008). “Poverty Measurement: The Development of Different Approaches and Its
Techniques”, ECINEQ WP 2008 – 93. Portugal: Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
O’Brien, R. (2001). Research into the Digital Divide in Canada. Faculty of Information
Studies, University of Toronto, July 23, 2001.
[http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/digdivide.html]
OECD, (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and User
Guide, [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/42/42495745.pdf].
OECD, (2011). Society at a Glance 2011 – OECD social indicators,
[http://www.oecd.org/document/24/0,3746,en_2649_34637_2671576_1_1_1_1,00.html].
O’Hara, P. (2006). Social Inclusion Health Indicators: A Framework for Addressing the
Social Determinants of Health. A Policy and Practice Paper, Edmonton: Edmonton Social
Planning Council.
ONPES, (2006). Propositions en matière d'indicateurs, Observatoire National de la Pauvreté
et de l’Exclusion Sociale.
ONPES, (2007). Mesures et évolution de la pauvreté de 1996 à 2007, Observatoire National
de la Pauvreté et de l’Exclusion Sociale.
[http://www.onpes.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Fiches_Presse.pdf]
ONPES, (2009). Mesures et évolution de la pauvreté, Observatoire National de la Pauvreté et
de l’Exclusion Sociale.
OPHI & UNDP (2010). Multidimensional Poverty Index. Oxford Poverty and Human
Development Initiative. [http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/MPI_One_Page_final_updated.pdf?cda6c1]
Orshansky, M. (1965). “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile”, Social
Security Bulletin, 28:3-29.
Palmer, G., MacInnes, T. and P. Kenway (2008). Monitoring poverty and social exclusion
2008. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Pantazis, C. Gordon, D. And R. Levitas (2006) (eds.). Poverty and Social Exclusion: the
Millennium Survey, Bristol: Policy Press.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 83
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Percy-Smith, J. (2000). “Introduction: The Contours of Social Exclusion”, In J. Percy-Smith
(ed.),
Policy Responses to Social Exclusion: Towards Inclusion?, Buckingham: Open University
Press.
PHAC, (2001). Social Capital, Social Cohesion, Social Inclusion/Exclusion.
[http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/news2001-bulletin2001/pdf/social_exclusion_en.pdf]
Phipps, S. and L. Curtis (2001) . The Social Exclusion of Children in North America.
Departments of Economics and Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie
University. [http://www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/sp.pdf]
PHIRN 2011. Data Base Index.
Popay, J., Escorel, S., Hernández, M., Johnston,H., Mathieson, J. and L. Rispel (2008).
Understanding and Tackling Social Exclusion, Final Report to the WHO Commission on
Social Determinants of Health From the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network, SEKN.
Power, A. and W. Wilson (2000). Social Exclusion and the Future of Cities, Centre for
Analysis of Social Exclusion, London: London School of Economics.
Quebec, (Undated). Guide méthodologique : L’indice de défavorisation matérielle et sociale :
en bref.
Rajulton, F., Ravanera, Z. and R., Beaujot (2006). “Measuring Social Cohesion: An
experiment using the Canadian national survey of giving, volunteering and participating”,
Social Indicators Research, 80: 461–492.
Ranis, G., Stewart, F. and E. Samman (2007). Human Development: beyond the Human
Development Index. Journal of Human Development 7(3):323-358.
Raphael, D. (2006). "Social Determinants of Health: present status, unanswered questions,
and future Directions", International Journal of Health Services, 36(4):651–677.
Ravallion, M., Chen, S. and Sangraula, P. (2008) Dollar a Day Revisited. Policy Research
Working Paper (WPS4620). The World Bank Development Research Group Director’s
Office. Available at:
[http://www2.dse.unibo.it/ardeni/papers_development/WB_wps4620_Ravallion-Chen-
Sangraula_2008.pdf].
Ravallion, M. (2011). “What Does Adam Smith’s Linen Shirt Have to do with Global
Poverty?”, Let’s Talk Development. A blog hoisted by the World Bank’s Chief Economist.
April 18, 2011 [http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/node/616]
84 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Rawal, N. (2008). “Social Inclusion and Exclusion: A Review”, Dhaulagiri Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, 2:161-180.
The Roeher Institute, (2003). Policy Approaches to Framing Social Inclusion Exclusion: An
Overview, Toronto: The Roeher Institute.
Room, G. (1995). Beyond the Threshold: The measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion,
(ed). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Room, G. (1997). “Social quality in Europe: perspectives on social exclusion”, in W. Beck, L.
van der Maesen and A.Walker (eds) The Social Quality of Europe, The Hague, Netherlands:
Kluwer Law International.
Ross, D, Shillington, E., and C. Lochhead (1994). A working definition of Statistics Canada
Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs). The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty 1994 - related material.
The Canadian Council on Social Development.
[http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/archive/fb94/fs_povbk.htm]
Rothenbacher, F. (1998). “European scientific socio-economic reporting: State and
possibilities of development”, Social Indicators Research, 44:291–328.
Rowlingson, K. (2011). Does income inequality cause health and social problems? London:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Saloojee, A. (undated). “Social Inclusion, Citizenship and Diversity”, Canadian Council on
Social Development [http://www.ccsd.ca/subsites/inclusion/bp/as.htm].
Saunders, P. (2003). Can Social Exclusion Provide a New Framework for Measuring Poverty?,
SPRC Discussion Paper No. 127. Sydney: The Social Policy Research Centre.
Saunders, P. and L. Adelman (2006). “Income Poverty, Deprivation and Exclusion: A
Comparative Study of Australia and Britain”, Journal of Social Policy, 35(4):559-584.
Saunders, P., Naidoo, Y. and M. Griffiths (2008). “Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage:
Deprivation and Social Exclusion in Australia”, Australian Journal of Social Issues,
43(2):175-194.
Saunders, P. and M. Wong (2009). Still doing it tough: an update on deprivation and social
exclusion among welfare service clients. Social Policy Research Centre: University of New
South Wales.
Sciadas, G. (Undated).The Digital Divide in Canada. Statistics Canada - Catalogue no.
56F0009XIE. [http://dsp-
psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/56F0009X/56F0009XIE2002001.pdf]
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 85
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Schonfelder, K. and K. Axhausen (2003). “Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion?”,
Transport Policy, 10: 273–286.
Schrecker, T. and R. Labonte (2007). “What's politics got to do with it? Health, the G8 and
the global economy”, in Kawachi I and S. Wamala (eds) Globalisation and Health, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Schrecker, T., Chapman, A., Labonté, R. and R. De Vogli (2010). “Advancing health equity in
the global marketplace: How human rights can help”, Social Science & Medicine 71:1520-26.
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, (2008). Social Exclusion in Rural Areas: A
Literature Review and Conceptual Framework - Research Findings, [http://www.scotland.
gov.uk/cru/resfinds/cru.admin@scotland.gov.uk].
Scutella, R., Wilkins, R. and M. Horn (2009). Measuring Poverty and Social Exclusion in
Australia: A Proposed Multidimensional Framework for Identifying Socio-Economic
Disadvantage, Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 4/09. Victoria:
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.
Sebastian, B., Jan-Philipp, K. and M. Ralf (Undated). Policy use of Laeken Indicators.
[http://www.cros-portal.eu/sites/default/files/PS2%20Poster%206.pdf]
Seillier, B. (2008). Rapport d’information. Belgium Senate: n° 445 sénat : Session
extraordinaire de 2007-2008. [http://www.senat.fr/rap/r07-445-1/r07-445-11.pdf].
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2000). “Social exclusion: Concept, application and scrutiny”, Social Development
Papers No. 1, Office of Environment and Social Development, Manila: Asian Development
Bank.
Shookner, M. (2002). An Inclusion Lens: Workbook for Looking at Social and Economic
Exclusion
and Inclusion, Ottawa, Health Canada, [http://www.hc
sc.gc.ca/hppb/regions/atlantic/news/ index.html].
Silver, H. (1994). “Social exclusion and social solidarity: The paradigms”, International
Labour Review, 133:5-6.
Silver, H. (2007). The Process of Social Exclusion: The Dynamics of an Evolving Concept,
Chronic
86 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Poverty Research Center, Working Paper No. 95, October 2007.
[http://www.chronicpoverty.org /pdfs/95Silver.pdf].
Social Inclusion Unit, (2004). Evaluation: The Social Inclusive Initiative Big Picture.
Background Discussion Paper Two. Adelaide: Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
Spandler, H (2007). “From Social Exclusion to Inclusion? A Critique of the Inclusion
Imperative in Mental Health”, University of Central Lancashire, Preston
[http://www.medicalsociologyonline.org/archives/issue22/spandler.html].
Spoehr, J., Wilson, L., Barnett, K., Toth, T., and A. Watson-Tran (2007). Measuring social
inclusion and exclusion in Northern Adelaide: a report for the Department of Health.
Australian Institute for Social Research. Australia: University of Adelaide.
Stansfeld, S. and M. Marmot (eds, 2002). Stress and the Heart: Psychosocial Pathways to
Coronary Heart Disease, London: BMJ Books.
Statistics Canada (2011). Canadian internet use survey. [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-
quotidien/110525/dq110525b-eng.htm].
Stewart, K. (2002). Measuring Well-Being and Exclusion in Europe’s Regions, Centre for
Analysis of Social Exclusion, CASE paper 53, London: London School of Economics.
Stiglitz, S., Sen, A. and J. Fitouss (2010a). Mis-measuring Our Lives. Why GDP Doesn't Add Up,
New York: The New Press.
Stiglitz, S., Sen, A. and J. Fitouss (2010b). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. [http://www.stiglitz-sen-
fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf]
Thomas, D. (1999). Indicators of Social Cohesion in Canada, Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom, London: Allen Lane and Penguin
Books.
Tsakloglou, P. and F. Papadopoulos (2001). Identifying Population Groups at High Risk of
Social Exclusion: Evidence from the ECHP, Discussion Paper No. 392.
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=290600].
Tsakloglou, P. and F. Papadopoulos (2002). “Aggregate level and determining factors of
social exclusion in twelve European countries”, Journal of European Social Policy,
12(211):2-16.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 87
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
United Nations, (2007). Literature Review on Social Exclusion in the ESCWA Region,
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
United Nations, (2010). Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations.
UNDP, (2010). The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development, Human
Development Report 2010, New York: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP, (2011). The UN Common Understanding and A human rights-based approach to
programming. [http://hrba.undp.sk/index.php/terms-and-concepts/a-human-rights-
based-approach-to-programming/the-un-common-understanding-and-a-human-rights-
based-approach-to-programming/195-the-concept-of-social-inclusion-and-other-
programming-approaches].
Vleminckx, K. and J. Berghman (2001). Social Exclusion and the Welfare State: An Overview
of Conceptual Issues and Policy Implications. In: Mayes, D., Berghman, J., & Salais, R. (Eds.),
Social
Exclusion and European Policy. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
Walker, R. (1995). “The dynamics of poverty and social exclusion”, in G. Room (ed) Beyond
the Threshold: The measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Wilkinson, R. (1996). Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. Routledge, New York.
Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone.
London: Penguin.
Wotherspoon, T. (2002). The dynamics of social inclusion: public education and Aboriginal
people in Canada, The Laidlaw Foundation.
Yitzhaki, S. (1979). “Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient”, Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 93, 321–324.
Young, J. “Relative Deprivation” (no date)
[http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htm]
88 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Appendix A: Domains and Indicators Found in Databases
Domain
Indicator
Database/Studies
Employment
and work
Employment status
(n=18)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Estivill (2003)
Atkinson (2002)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Health Canada (2002)
National Institute for Public Health Quebec (2009)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Access to job/labour
market (n=11)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Saunders et al. (2008)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Atkinson (2002)
OECD (2007)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Piachaud et al. (2009)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
People living in
jobless households
(n=7)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Laeken indicators (2001)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Long-term
unemployment
(n=4)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Laeken indicators (2001)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Security of job/
quality of
employment
(n=5)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Estivill (2003)
OECD (2007)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 89
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Income and
economic
resources
Family income
(n=17)
Berman and Phillips (2000),
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Estivill (2003)
Atkinson (2002)
OECD (2007)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
National Institute for Public Health Quebec (2009)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Access to credit
facilities (n=4)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Income poverty or
low income (n=15)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Laeken indicators (2001)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Atkinson (2002)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Level of income
after transfers (n=4)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Laeken indicators (2001)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Persistence of low
income (n=5)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Laeken indicators (2001)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Inequality of income
distribution (n=6)
Laeken indicators (2001)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
Health Canada (2002)
BIP40 (2005)
Belgian Senate (Seillier 2008)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Savings (n=6)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
90 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
British Household Panel Study
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
OECD (2007)
Debt (n=3)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
OECD (2007)
Participation in
social security
schemes (n=6)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
National Institute for Public Health Quebec (2009)
O'Hara (2006)
Consumption (n=6)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Children living in
households below
average income
(n=1)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Retired (n=2)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Material
resources
No access to car
(n=2)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
TV (n=2)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
Telephone (n=3)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
Quality of furniture
(n=1)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Washing machine
(n=1)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Home PC/internet
(n=2)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Ability to buy new
cloth (n=1)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Ability to eat meat
or fish every second
day (n=3)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 91
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Education
and skills
Enrolment (n=4)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
OECD (2007)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Vocational skills
(n=1)
Estivill (2003)
Educational
attainment/years of
schooling (n=12)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Atkinson (2002)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Laeken indicators (2001)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Estivill (2003)
National Institute for Public Health Quebec (2009)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Basic skills (literacy
and numeracy)
(n=3)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Atkinson (2002)
Language barrier
(n=1)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Access to education
(n=4)
Berman and Phillips (2000),
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Exclusion from
school (n=4)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Laeken indicators (2001)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
Health
Access to health
services (n=5)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Life expectancy
(n=6)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Laeken indicators (2001)
OECD (2007)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Disability (n=6)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Health Canada (2002)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
92 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Physical health and
morbidity (n=9)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Laeken indicators (2001)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Atkinson (2002)
OECD (2007)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Long-term illness
(n=1)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Experiencing
depression and
anxiety (n=1)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Housing
Homelessness/core
housing need (n=7)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Atkinson (2002)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Access to good
housing (n=5)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(2010)
OECD (2007)
Statistic Institute of Quebec (2005)
Home ownership
(n=5)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Ability to pay rent
(n=1)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Housing
condition/quality
(n=6)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
OECD (2007)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
People receiving
help from social
services to live at
home (n=3)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
National Observatory for Poverty and Social exclusion (ONPES)
L'inventaire de pauvreté exclusion sociale (MESS 2005)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 93
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Social
resources
Social network/
partnership (n=14)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
British Household Panel Study
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Euro-barometer surveys (2006)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Estivill (2003)
OECD (2007)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
de Haan (1999)
Lack of access to
information (n=4)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Access to social
institutions (n=10)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Euro-barometer surveys (2006)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
de Haan (1999)
Health Canada (2002)
O'Hara (2006)
Social participation
(n=12)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Estivill (2003)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Health Canada (2002)
Regular social
contact (n=3)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Separation from
family (n=4)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Euro-barometer surveys (2006)
National Institute for Public Health Quebec (2009)
94 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Child care services
(n=6)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Community
resources
Having friends to
discuss intimate
matters (n=9)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Diversity in social
contacts (n=3)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Participation in civic
organizations
(n=13)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Health Canada (2002)
O'Hara (2006)
Citizenship status
(n=3)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
de Haan (1999)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Participation in the
political process
(n=10)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE)
British Household Panel Study
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE)
(1999)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
National Public Opinion Survey (NPOS)
Social justice/ rights
or freedoms (n=6)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Estivill (2003)
Atkinson (2002)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Health Canada (2002)
O'Hara (2006)
Access to private or
public transport
(n=6)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 95
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Gordon et al. (2000)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
O'Hara (2006)
Discrimination
(n=4)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Australian Institute for Social Research (2009)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Health Canada (2002)
Physical
environment/
quality of
neighbourhoods
(n=4)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
OECD (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
Laidlaw Foundation (Canada)
Membership of clubs
or societies (n=6)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Tsakloglou and Papadopoulos (2001, 2002)
Northern Adelaide Survey of Social Inclusion (NASIS) (2005)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
Access to leisure
facilities (n=6)
Saunders et al. (2008)
Berman and Phillips (2000)
Levitas (2007)
Pantazis et al. (2006)
Gordon et al. (2000)
O'Hara (2006)
Personal
safety
Crime (n=4)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
Neighbourhood
safety (n=1)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Discrimination
(n=4)
New Policy Institute of UK (1998)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
National Public Opinion Survey (NPOS)
Subjective
safety/fears of
personal attack
(n=4)
Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) (2007)
Melbourne Institute (2008)
European Commission (2010), EUROSTAT
OECD (2007)
96 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Appendix B: Description of Canadian Databases
Note: Different provinces also undertake surveys and maintain databases. Since
provinces have constitutional rights and responsibilities related to several of the
domains of social exclusion/inclusion, development of provincial-level indicator sets
is likely relevant and to be encouraged. Quebec has already done so, with some of its
indicator work described and referenced in the body of this report. As the mandate
of HRSDC is national, however, we focus on national databases only.
Census of Population (CP)
The Census of Population is a reliable basis for the estimation of the population of the
provinces, territories and local municipal areas. Statistics Canada conducts the Census of
Population in order to develop a statistical portrait of Canada and Canadians on one
specific day. The census is designed to provide information about people and housing units
in Canada by their demographic, social and economic characteristics. Key indicators are
aboriginal, age, birthplace, citizenship, commuting, dwelling, education, employment,
ethnic origin, family, first nation, full time work, government income, household,
immigration, income, investment, labour force, language, marital status, mobility, mother
tongue, part time work, pension, self employment, shelter, unpaid work, visible minority,
and wages.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: Every 5 years since 1871
Sample size: 20% of census respondents (NHS respondents in 2006 were 728,340)
Source: Statistics Canada
Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)
This survey seeks to support health surveillance programs by providing health data at the
national, provincial and intra-provincial levels; provide a single data source for health
research on small populations and rare characteristics; provide a timely release of
information easily accessible to a community of users; and create a flexible survey
instrument that includes a rapid response option to address emerging issues related to the
health of the population. Source agency is Statistics Canada. A cross-sectional survey in
which data were collected from over 130,000 respondents, aged 12 or older, residing in
households across all provinces and territories. Key indicators are age, sex, marital status,
province, alcohol, diabetes, disability, exercise, health care, immigrant, injury, job, language,
racial origin, restrictions, smoking, strain, stress and treatment.
Data availability: Canada, provinces, territories and health regions
Frequency of data collection: 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 97
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Sample size: 60,000 (approximately)
Source: Statistics Canada
Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS)
The Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS) provides an extensive set of data about Métis, Inuit,
and off-reserve First Nations adults 15 years and over and children 6 to 14, living in urban,
rural, and northern locations across Canada. The Aboriginal Peoples Survey was designed
to provide a picture of the lifestyles and living conditions of Métis, Inuit, and off-reserve
First Nations peoples in Canada. The Aboriginal Peoples Survey is a post-censal survey, that
is, a sample of about 60,000 people was selected from adults 15 years and over and
children aged 6 to 14 living in private households whose response(s) on their 2006 Census
questionnaire. The survey was developed by Statistics Canada. The Aboriginal Peoples
Survey was conducted between October 2006 and March 2007. The key variables are
aboriginal, activity, age, sex, aid, ancestry, band, BMI, condition, culture, diagnosis,
education, exercise, fishing, group health, identity, health care, income, injury, language,
medication, mental health, Métis, move, schooling, spirituality, treatment, and work.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories (Métis, Inuit, First Nations)
Frequency of data collection: 1991, 2001, 2006, 2008
Sample size: 61,041 (approximately)
Source: Statistics Canada
Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS)
This survey has two objectives. First, the data will help us to better understand how
people's backgrounds affect their participation in Canada's social, economic and cultural
life. Second, the information that is gathered will help us to better understand how
Canadians of different ethnic origins interpret and report their ethnicity. The Ethnic
Diversity Survey (EDS) was a post-censal survey which included about 42,500 people aged
15 and over who were interviewed by telephone in the 10 provinces between April and
August 2002. Source of data is Statistics Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Topics covered in the survey include age, sex, marital status, province or territory,
language, mother tongue, ethnic ancestry, ethnic identity, migration, place of birth, visible
minority status, religion, religious participation, knowledge of languages, family
background, family interaction, social networks, civic participation, interaction with
society, attitudes, satisfaction with life, trust and socio-economic activities.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 2002
Sample size: 42,476 (approximately)
Source: Statistics Canada
98 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
National Survey on Ageing and Independence (NSAI)
The National Survey on Ageing and Independence was conducted by Statistics Canada. The
Survey on Ageing and Independence was based upon a sub-sample of former Labour Force
Survey (LFS) respondents. A representative sample of 25,000 persons aged 45 or over
across Canada was selected from the September 1990 - June 1991 Labour Force files. The
use of former LFS respondents was advantageous in that information on persons' ages was
available to efficiently tailor the sample to meet the specific survey requirements in
particular, the desire to focus more of the sample on people in the older age groups. These
data may be accessed by designated DLI Contacts. For non-academic researchers the data
may be purchased as a public use microdata file (PUMF). The key variables are: accidents,
activities, age, marital status, employment, children, death, debts, disability, ethnic,
expenses, family, financial security, health, housing characteristics, income, injury,
investments, labour characteristics, language, leisure activities, marital status, mobility,
occupation, pension, physical activities, property, rent, retirement, retirement
preparation, safety, social activities, social support, stress, volunteer, well-being, and
work.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1991
Sample size: 73,000 households (approximately)
Source: Statistics Canada
National Public Opinion Survey (NPOS)
The purpose of this survey is to take the pulse of Canadians on a wide range of relevant
policy areas and issues facing the country at this time. The overall framework for the
research is Canadians’ political values, including social issues (e.g., crime and justice, health
care, multiculturalism), economic issues (taxation), confidence in institutions, the role of
government and Canada’s place in the world.
The Environics Institute conducted this survey by telephone with a representative sample
of 2,020 Canadians (aged 18 and over) between September 27 and October 12, 2010. The
survey sample is stratified to ensure coverage of all 10 provinces, and is representative of
the population by age cohort, gender and community size.
Data availability: Canada and provinces
Frequency of data collection: 2010
Sample size: 2,020 persons (aged 18 and over)
Source: Environics Institute
Political Support Survey (PSS) in Canada
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) conducted this
survey as part of a larger project to study the political attitudes and behaviour of the
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 99
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Canadian electorate. Sampling Procedure: Stratified random national sample, with over-
sampling in western and smaller provinces. Respondents were asked to indicate how
closely they followed politics, how much they discussed and participated in politics, and
how warm or cool (on a 100-degree scale) they felt toward the country, their community,
and government at several levels, including political parties and party leaders. They were
asked to state their agreement or disagreement with a number of attitudinal statements
regarding taxes, equal treatment of citizens by the federal government, equal
representation and opportunities for participation in government, and economic
opportunity. A number of questions asked respondents to assess their own economic
welfare as well as its relation to the federal government's management of the national
economy. Membership in national and regional parties was identified.
Data availability: Canada and provinces
Frequency of data collection: 1993
Sample size:
Source: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) of USA
General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization
In 2009, as part of its General Social Survey program, Statistics Canada conducted a survey
on victimization and public perceptions of crime and the justice system. It was the fourth
time that the General Social Survey (GSS) had examined victimization - previous surveys
were conducted in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. The target population was Canadians aged
15 years and older living in the ten provinces. Victimization surveys have limitations. For
one, they rely on respondents to report events accurately. They are also only able to
address certain types of victimization. They do not capture information on crimes that have
no obvious victim (e.g., prostitution or impaired driving), where the victim is a business or
school, where the victim is dead (as in homicides), or when the victim is a child (anyone
under the age of 15 in the case of the GSS). The key variables are: adult offenders, age, sex,
marital status, assaults, break and enter offences, community services, crime and
offences, criminal injuries compensation, education attainment, elder abuse, emotional
abuse, employment, health, incidents reported, income, justice, languages, motor vehicle
theft, parole, personal safety, police officers, police services, property crimes, public
safety, religion, sexual assaults, spousal violence, suspect victim relationships, theft,
urban transit, and victimization.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1988, 1993, 1999, 2004, 2009
Sample size: Approximately 10,000 persons till 1998. Increased to 25,000 (approximately)
Source: Statistics Canada
General Social Survey: Education, Work and Retirement
The ninth social survey marks the repeat of the GSS core subject on Education, Work, and
Retirement, originally covered in Cycle 4 (1989). Although the core content is the same in
100 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
both cycles, there are differences between the two surveys. For example, Cycle 9 focuses
more on quality of life after retirement and post-retirement activities than Cycle 4. In
addition, the Cycle 9 questionnaire has two new sections: social origin and work
interruptions. The target population is non-institutionalized persons 15 years of age or
older, living in the ten provinces. The data were collected over a 12-month period, from
January 1994 to December 1994, using a computer-assisted telephone interview system.
The key variables are educational attainment, education, employed persons, hours of work,
health indicators, income, mother tongue, occupational stress, occupation, religion,
retirement, stress, unemployment, work interruptions, working conditions.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1989, 1994
Sample size: Approximately 10,000 persons
Source: Statistics Canada
General Social Survey: Social Engagement
The GSS originated in 1985. The first GSS cycle on social engagement collected data on
dimensions of social engagement, including social participation, civic participation, trust
and reciprocity in 2003. The purpose of Cycle 22 is to collect data on social networks, and
social and civic participation. Information is also being collected on major changes in
respondents’ lives and the resources they used and needed during these transitions.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1985, 1998, 2003, 2008
Sample size: About 10,000 until 1998, increased to about 25,000 since then
Source: Statistics Canada
General Social Survey: Family and Friends
The first GSS on Family and Friends (Cycle 5) was fielded in 1990 and explored the
respondents’ relationships and interaction with family and friends. The content drew
heavily on the 1984 Family History Survey and GSS Cycle 1. Cycle 10 in 1995 and Cycle 15
in 2001 also addressed a range of family issues. The theme of social supports and networks
has also been carried throughout other cycles of the GSS. The latest cycle in 2006 focuses
on family and early course transitions. New content will look at the challenges and
transitions faced by families such as family formation, work/life balance, child care and
buying a first home.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1990, 1995, 2001, 2006 (Every five year)
Sample size: 13,495 (in 1990)
Source: Statistics Canada
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 101
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Canadian Out-of-employment Panel Survey (COEPS)
The survey collects information on employment history during an 18-month period,
background demographics on the individual and the household, as well as information on
job search activities and outcomes, income, assets and debts, expenditures, and training.
The main purpose of this survey is to evaluate various programs which are run by Human
Resources Development Canada (HRDC), such as the Employment Insurance program, and
job skills and training programs. HRDC wants to know how well these programs are
working, if they are accessible to everyone who needs them, if they are meeting their goals
and to what extent they actually help people. This survey interviewed people who had a job
interruption during one of the two reference periods: (1) Jan. 29-Mar. 11, 1995; or (2) Apr.
23-June 3, 1995. This is a sample survey with a cross-sectional design. Source agency is
Statistics Canada. The key variables are employment, unemployment, employment
insurance, social assistance transfers , job training, educational attainment , labour assets,
debt, demographic characteristics, employment, household expenditures, income, job
search, training.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1995, 1996 (covering Jan 29 to Mar 11 and Apr 23 to June 3)
Sample size: Approximately 19,195 individuals
Source: Statistics Canada
Changes in Employment Survey (CIEP)
The main purpose of this survey is to evaluate various programs run by Human Resources
Development Canada (HRDC), such as the Employment Insurance Program and job skills
and training programs. HRDC needs to examine these programs to assess their accessibility
and usefulness. Another use is to measure the impact of changes made to the Employment
Insurance law in the last few years on their clientele. Secondary objectives of the survey
include the continuation of the information collected in the 1993 and 1995 Canadian Out-
of-Employment Panel Surveys. This includes collection of background demographics on the
individual and the household, as well as information on job search activities and outcomes,
assets and debts, expenditures, and utilization of Employment Insurance and Social
Assistance. The sample survey is based on a cross-sectional design. Source agency is
Statistics Canada. The key variables are education, Employment Insurance, income and
mobility.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: Jan 1995 to Sep 1996; Jul 1995 to Feb 1997; Jan 1996 to Sep
1997; Jul 1996 to Feb 1998; and Jan 1997 to Sep 1998.
Sample size: Between 14,650 and 19,722 persons
Source: Statistics Canada
Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID)
102 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
At the heart of the survey's objectives is the understanding of the economic well-being of
Canadians: what economic shifts do individuals and families live through, and how does it
vary with changes in their paid work, family make-up, and receipt of government transfers
or other factors? The survey's longitudinal dimension makes it possible to see such
concurrent and often related events. This is a sample survey with a cross-sectional design
and a longitudinal follow-up. Source agency is Statistics Canada. The variables are income,
labour force characteristics, longitudinal surveys, taxation statistics, wages.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: Yearly since 1993
Sample size: Roughly 17,000 households
Source: Statistics Canada
Labour Force Survey (LFS)
The survey was designed to provide estimates of employment by industry and occupation
at the regional as well as the national level. The LFS is a monthly household survey of a
sample of individuals who are representative of the civilian, non-institutionalized
population 15 years of age or older. It is conducted nationwide, in both the provinces and
the territories. Source agency is Statistics Canada. Time period covered was from January
1, to December 31, 1988. The key variables are labour force, age, sex, worker class,
industry, characteristics, seasonality, adjusted, educational attainment, full-time, part-time,
students, labour hours, unionization and industrial relations, wages, salaries, and earnings.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: Since 1976, twice a month
Sample size: Since July 1995, approximately 54,000 households
Source: Statistics Canada
Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALL)
The goals of this study are to shed light on the twin processes of skill gain and loss in adult
populations; profile and compare, for the first time, the level and distribution of directly
assessed numeracy skills among adult populations in participating countries; and profile
and compare the level and distribution of problem solving skills among the adult
populations of the countries surveyed. The foundation skills measured in the ALL survey
include prose literacy, document literacy, numeracy and problem solving. Additional skills
assessed indirectly include familiarity with and use of information and communication
technologies. This survey will be supplanted beginning in 2010 by the Programme for the
International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). The Source agency is Statistics
Canada. The key variables are Skills, age, gender, country, skill profiles, education, adult,
training, formal, informal, income, investment, immigration, physical health, mental health,
and labour market.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 103
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Frequency of data collection: 2003
Sample size: Approximately 20,059
Source: Statistics Canada
Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS)
The objectives of this survey were to provide reliable estimates of the nature and extent of
violence against women by male partners, acquaintances and strangers and to examine
women's fear of violence in order to support current and future federal government
activities. This one-time-only survey examines the safety of women both inside and outside
the home - perceptions of fear, sexual harassment, sexual violence, physical violence and
threats by strangers, dates/boyfriends, other known men, husbands and common-law
partners. Source agency is Statistics Canada. This is a sample survey with a cross-sectional
design. The key variables are alcohol consumption, assaults, counselling services, criminal
harassment, crisis lines, educational attainment, employment, family violence income,
injuries, marital status, marriages, medical drugs, personal safety, physical assaults, police
services, relationship, rural, safety, sexual assaults, sexual assaults centres, self defence,
shelters, sleep problems, spouse, urban, victim assistance, violence, violent crimes and
offences, wife assaults, and women.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1993, 1999, 2004
Sample size: Approximately 12,300 women
Source: Statistics Canada
International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey (IALSS)
The International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, undertaken in 2003, measured the
proficiencies of a representative sample of Canadian adults aged 16 and over in four
domains: prose literacy, document literacy, numeracy and problem solving, and
benchmarked performance against an international standard. The proficiency scores are
compared over time between provinces, territories and nations. This is a sample survey
with a cross-sectional design representing Canadian adults aged 16 and over not residing
in institutions or on Aboriginal reserves. The key variables are adult education, training,
education, training, learning, literacy, adult education, age, courses, culture, ethnic, gender,
health status indicators, immigration , income, international comparisons, job, language,
literacy, marital status, occupation, seniors, socioeconomic profiles, schooling, training, and
work.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 2003
Sample size: 16,000 dwellings to cover general population and an additional 24,000
dwellings for supplementary samples
Source: Statistics Canada
104 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
School Leavers Follow-up Survey (SLFS)
The two primary objectives of the School Leavers Survey were i) To develop comparative
profiles of three groups of secondary school attendees a) those that successfully completed
secondary school (graduates), b) those still attending (continuers), c) those who left school
before receiving a diploma or certificate (leavers); and ii) To establish rates of leaving
school before graduation, in Canada and the Provinces. The survey was designed to address
questions of what environmental, social, attitudinal, personal and economic factors
contribute to the early departure of some students from school to the labour force, their
early labour market experiences and their quality of life. This survey collected information
on the level of education attained, experiences in school, family background, etc., from
individuals 18 - 20 years old. Source agency is Statistics Canada. The key variables are
alcohol, allowance, attended, attitude, boredom, convicted, difficulties, drugs,
education, English, enrolled, failed, freedom, grade, health, income, job, language,
leaving, math, medical, money, peer, pregnancy, program, reading, school, skills,
skipped, sports, teachers, training, value, wages, work, and writing.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1991, 1995
Sample size: Approximately 9,460 young people aged 18 to 20
Source: Statistics Canada
National Population Health Survey (NPHS)
This survey is designed to measure the health status of Canadians and to add to the existing
body of knowledge about the determinants of health. The NPHS, which relies on
respondents' self-reported health information, surveys the same group of respondents
every two years for up to 20 years. This is a sample survey with a cross-sectional design
and a longitudinal follow-up. Source agency is Statistics Canada. Key indicators are activity
limitations , alcohol consumption, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, chronic health problems,
country of origin, dental care, educational attainment, ethnic origin, hospital utilization,
income, mental health care, physical condition, respiratory diseases, social support, and
socioeconomic profiles.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 1994/95, 1996/97, 1998/99
Sample size: Approximately 20,000 households
Source: Statistics Canada
Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC)
This survey was designed to provide information on how new immigrants adjust to life in
Canada and to understand the factors that can help or hinder this adjustment. The data will
be used to evaluate the current services available and help improve them.
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 105
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
There exists a growing need for information on recent immigrants to Canada. As part of
adapting to life in Canada, many immigrants face challenges such as finding suitable
accommodation, learning or becoming more fluent in one or both of Canada's official
languages, participating in the labour market or accessing education and training
opportunities. While integration may take many years, the LSIC is designed to examine the
first four years of settlement, a time when newcomers establish economic, social and
cultural ties to Canadian society. Topics covered in the survey include language proficiency,
housing, education, foreign credential recognition, employment, health, values and
attitudes, the development and use of social networks, income, and perceptions of
settlement in Canada.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 2005
Sample size:
Source: Statistics Canada
Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS)
The Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS) measures household access to the Internet and
individual online behaviours including electronic commerce. For 2010, the Canadian
Internet Use Survey (CIUS) was redesigned to better measure the type and speed of
household Internet connections. It is a hybrid survey that measures both household
Internet access and the individual online behaviours of a selected household member. It
replaces the previous CIUS, a biennial survey conducted in 2005, 2007 and 2009.
The CIUS measures the availability, type and speed of home Internet connections. It then
selects a member from the household to measure the extent and scope of online behaviour
including the location, frequency and intensity of use, specific uses including the purchase
of products and services (electronic commerce), and other related issues such as online
security practices. This content is supplemented by individual and household
characteristics (e.g., age, income, family type) and some geographic detail (e.g. province
and Census Metropolitan Area).
The target population is residents of Canada 16 years of age or older excluding: Residents
of the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, Inmates of Institutions, Persons living on
Indian Reserves, and Full time members of the Canadian Forces.
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010
Sample size: In 2010 survey - 30,770 (household component) and 22,623 (individual
component)
Source: Statistics Canada
National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY)
106 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth is a long-term study to monitor
child development and well being of Canada’s children as they grow from infancy to
adulthood. To do so, a representative sample of Canadian children aged between 0-11
years old was selected and interviewed in 1994-1995. Interviews are conducted every two
years and the current plans are to follow that cohort of children until they reach the age of
25. The survey has now gone through three collection cycles and already a number of
changes have been observed. Source agency is Statistics Canada. This survey is in its
seventh cycle. The key variables are academic achievement, adopted, alcohol consumption,
births, cesarean, child, child care, children, day care centres, demographic characteristics,
development, emotional, employment, ethnic origin, family, friendship, immigrant, income,
infants, labour force, language, mental health, parent, occupations, religion, siblings,
salaries, social support, tax, teenagers, tobacco, welfare, and youth.
Data availability: Canada’s 10 provinces
Frequency of data collection: 1994/95 to 2008/09 (in every two year)
Sample size: Ranges between 4,492 and 7,472 children and households
Source: Statistics Canada
First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey (RHS)
The main objectives of the RHS are to provide scientifically and culturally validated
information, while enhancing First Nations capacity and control over research. It is
conducted across the ten regions in Canada, surveying participants in over two hundred
First Nation communities. The RHS is carried out at a national and regional level with
sample sizes being adjusted regionally to assure adequate representation. Each survey is
carried out at three levels: adult, youth, and children. Inuit communities did not participate
in the 2003 survey. The first cycle of the RHS 1997: The pilot survey was completed in
2003 which was followed by RHS Phase 1 (2002/03) and RHS Phase 2 (2007/2008).
Data availability: Canada, provinces and territories
Frequency of data collection: 2002/03, 2007/08
Sample size: Approximately 22,602 in 238 First Nations communities
Source: Statistics Canada
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 107
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Appendix C: Indicators by Data Sources
Domain
Indicator
Data Source
CCHS
(3)
CP
APS
(2)
EDS
NSAI
NPO
S
PSS
GSS
(4)
COEPS
/CIEP
SLID
LFS
Employmen
t and work
Employment
status
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
Access to
employment
x
x
x
X
X
X
Jobless
households
x
X
X
Ability to work
x
X
X
Income and
economic
resources
Family income
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
Access to credit
services
x
x
x
X
X
Income after
public
transfers
x
x
x
X
X
x
Education
and skills
Educational
attainment
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
Lack of access
to training
X
Health
Physical health
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
Mental health/
depression
x
x
X
X
Disability
x
x
x
X
X
x
Utilization of
health services
x
x
x
x
Housing
Homelessness/
Ownership
x
x
x
x
Access to good
housing
x
X
Ability to pay
rent/ social
housing
x
x
x
Core housing
need/ need
repair
x
x
Material
resources
Possession of
car, TV, PC,
telephone,
Internet
x
x
Quality/
adequacy of
materials
x
x
Social
resources
Access to social
institution
x
x
x
x
x
Contact with
x
x
x
108 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
friends
Social support
x
x
x
x
Community
resources
Participation in
community
x
x
x
x
Ethnicity/
Racism
x
x
Gender equity
x
x
x
Participation in
political
process
x
x
x
Personal
safety
Victimization
x
x
x
X
Fear of crime
x
x
X
Discrimination
x
x
x
x
x
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 109
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Appendix D: Indicators and Measures, by Source and Level of
Disaggregation
Note: Highlighted measures are those of greatest frequency of reference and of data
collection
Domain
Employment and work
Indicator
Employment status
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population (CP)
Person works
for pay or in
self-
employment
in reference
week
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Person works
for pay in
reference
period
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Aboriginal
Peoples Survey
(APS)
Person works
for pay or in
self-
employment
in reference
period
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Ethnic Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS) on
Victimization
Person has a
job or self-
employed in
the last week
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)
Person works
for pay in
reference
period
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Full-time,
part-time
employment
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
110 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Adult Literacy and
Life Skills Survey
(ALL)
Person works
for pay in
reference
period
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Violence Against
Women Survey
(VAWS)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy and
Skills Survey
(IALSS)
Person works
for pay in
reference
period
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School Leavers
Follow-up Survey
(SLFS)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National Survey
on Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Person is a
paid worker,
self-employed
or unpaid
worker
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
Person works
for pay in
reference
period
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 111
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Employment and work
Indicator
Access to employment
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population (CP)
Person with
access to labour
market
Age, sex,
marital status
Provincial,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
governmen
t income,
pension
Census of
Population (CP)
Proportion of
the labour force
aged 15 or
older who did
not have a job
any time during
the current or
previous year
(long term
unemployment)
Age, sex,
marital status
Provincial,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
governmen
t income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS) on
Victimization
Person did not
find a full time
job
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Ethnic Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Person is
currently
unemployed
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Canadian Out-of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/(CIES)
Person works
30 hours+
/week
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible minority
Education,
wage,
governmen
t income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
Person is
currently
unemployed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Person is
currently
unemployed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Person is
currently
unemployed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Violence Against
Women Survey
Person is
currently
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
112 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
(VAWS)
unemployed
governmen
t income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Person is
currently
unemployed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
governmen
t income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 113
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Employment and work
Indicator
Jobless households
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population (CP)
No member
in the
household is
currently
employed
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Canadian Out-of-
employment Panel
Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
No member
in the
household is
currently
employed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
No member
in the
household is
currently
employed
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
114 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Employment and work
Indicator
Ability to work
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian Out-of-
employment Panel
Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Person is
able to work
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
Person is
able to work
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Income and economic resources
Indicator
Family income
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographi
c
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population (CP)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex,
marital status
Provincial,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Canadian
Community Health
Survey (CCHS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Aboriginal Peoples
Survey (APS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
employm
ent,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Ethnic Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Total HH
income from
all sources
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
National Survey on
Ageing and
Total income
of the family
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n,
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 115
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Independence
(NSAI)
from all
sources
income,
pension
National Public
Opinion Survey
(NPOS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS) on
Victimization
Total HH
income from
all sources
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Canadian Out-of-
employment Panel
Survey (COEPS)
Total income
of the HHs
from all
sources
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Adult Literacy and
Life Skills Survey
(ALL)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Violence Against
Women Survey
(VAWS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
International Adult
Literacy and Skills
Survey (IALSS)
Total income
of the family
from all
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
116 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
sources
governm
ent
income,
pension
School Leavers
Follow-up Survey
(SLFS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
National
Population Health
Survey (NPHS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 117
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Canadian Internet
Use Survey (CIUS)
Total income
of the family
from all
sources
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Domain
Income and economic resources
Indicator
Access to credit facilities
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographi
c
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population (CP)
Person can
borrow
money
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
National Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Person with
access to
employment
insurance
and other
social
assistance
programs
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Canadian Out-of-
employment Panel
Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Person with
experience of
seeking
access to
credit
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Survey of Labour
and Income
Dynamics (SLID)
Person can
borrow
money
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Educatio
n,
income,
governm
ent
income,
pension
Canadian
Community Health
Survey (CCHS)
Person can
borrow
money
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Educatio
n, wage,
governm
ent
income,
pension
118 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Income and economic resources
Indicator
Income after public transfers
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Census of
Population
(CP)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Income
support
received from
welfare
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 119
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Income
supports
received from
the
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Education and skills
Indicator
Educational attainment
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogr
aphic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health
Survey
(CCHS)
Highest level
of education
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Census of
Population
(CP)
Highest level
of schooling
Age, sex,
marital
status
Provincial,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Aboriginal
Peoples
Survey (APS)
Completion of
grades
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Highest level
of education
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Public
Opinion
Survey
(NPOS)
Highest level
of education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General
Social Survey
(GSS) on
Victimization
Highest level
of education
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
120 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Highest level of
education
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(VAWS)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Internet Use
Survey (CIUS)
Highest level of
education
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 121
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Education and skills
Indicator
Access to training
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogr
aphic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Person
receives
training
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Person
receives
training
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Person
receives
training
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Person
receives
training
Age, sex,
marital
status
Provincial,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Person
receives
training
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
122 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Health
Indicator
Physical health
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogra
phic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Census of
Population
(CP)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Aboriginal
Peoples
Survey (APS)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Any physical
limitation to
work
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Self-rated
physical health
status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 123
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Self-rated
physical
health status
disease
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(VAWS)
Self-rated
physical
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Self-rated
physical
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Self-rated
physical
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Self-rated
physical
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Self-rated
physical
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
124 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Health
Indicator
Mental health/depression
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogr
aphic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Aboriginal
Peoples
Survey (APS)
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Self-rated
mental
health status
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 125
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Health
Indicator
Disability
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
When someone
feels they are
prevented from
participating in
desired or
necessary
activities
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Census of
Population
(CP)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Perceived capacity
of physical
activities
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Person having
constant or
recurring
difficulty in
hearing, seeing,
walking or
climbing stairs or
communicating in
own language
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Any form of
physical condition
that reduce
activity at
workplace
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Adult Literacy
and Life Skills
Survey (ALL)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
126 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(VAWS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
School
Leavers
Follow-up
Survey (SLFS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Internet Use
Survey (CIUS)
Persons had
difficulty hearing,
seeing,
communicating, or
doing any similar
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Health
Indicator
Utilization of health services
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health
Survey
(CCHS)
Reasons of not
getting services
(such as wait
time, cost, too
busy, etc.)
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Aboriginal
Peoples
Survey (APS)
Availability and
use of services
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 127
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Availability and
use of services
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Experience of
discrimination
in hospitals or
health workers
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Availability and
use of services
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Housing
Indicator
Homelessness/Ownership of house
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Person owns
the house
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Census of
Population
(CP)
Person owns
the house
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Whether
requires major
or minor
repairs of the
house
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Person owns
the house
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
128 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Housing
Indicator
Access to good housing
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogra
phic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Type and
quality of
dwelling
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education, income,
government
income, pension
Survey of
Labour and
Income
Dynamics
(SLID)
Type and
quality of
dwelling
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education, income,
government
income, pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Type and
quality of
dwelling
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education, income,
government
income, pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Whether
requires major
or minor
repairs of the
house
Age,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education, income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 129
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Housing
Indicator
Ability to pay rent/ social housing
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population
(CP)
Person
receives
rental support
from
government
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income, pension
Labour Force
Survey (LFS)
Person
receives
rental support
from
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income, pension
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Person
receives
rental support
from
government
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income, pension
Longitudinal
Survey of
Immigrants to
Canada (LSIC)
Person
receives
rental support
from
government
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income, pension
Domain
Housing
Indicator
Core housing need/ need repair
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Census of
Population
(CP)
Whether
requires
major or
minor repairs
of the house
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory,
urban-rural
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
visible
minority,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income, pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Whether
requires
major or
minor repairs
of the house
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic origin,
immigration
Education,
income, pension
130 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Material resources
Indicator
Possession of car, TV, PC, telephone, Internet connection
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Whether
possess
microwave
oven, cable TV,
computer, etc.
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey (IALSS)
Whether
purchased TV,
oven, washer,
dryer, etc.
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Internet Use
Survey (CIUS)
Proportion of
households
with access to
the Internet
from home
Age
Province,
CMA
Education,
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS) on
Victimization
Experience of
income loss,
no income or
low income
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 131
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Social resources
Indicator
Access to social institution/ participation
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Eligibility of
participation
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Experienced
barrier to
participate in
sports,
restaurants,
schools,
buying a home,
etc.
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Whether
public
transportation,
etc. are
available
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
132 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Social resources
Indicator
Contact with friends
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Number of
relatives and
friends
having
contacts
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Frequency of
contacts
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Number of
relatives and
friends
having
contacts
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Number of
close friends
having
contacts
Age, marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Number of
relatives and
friends
having
contacts
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Number of
relatives and
friends
having
contacts
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 133
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Social resources
Indicator
Social support
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demogra
phic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Person have
friends who
support
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Survey on
Ageing and
Independence
(NSAI)
Participation
in providing or
receiving
social support
Age,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
pension
Political
Support
Survey (PSS)
Person
received
support from
the community
Age, sex,
marital
status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Community
Health Survey
(CCHS)
Person have
friends who
support
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult Literacy
and Skills
Survey
(IALSS)
Person have
friends who
support
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health Survey
(NPHS)
Person have
friends who
support
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
134 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Community resources
Indicator
Participation in community activities
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health
Survey
(CCHS)
Person
participates in
community
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
International
Adult
Literacy and
Skills Survey
(IALSS)
Person
participates in
community
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Population
Health
Survey
(NPHS)
Person
participates in
community
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Community
Health
Survey
(CCHS)
Participation
in ethnic and
cultural
associations
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Community resources
Indicator
Ethnicity/ Racism
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
National
Public
Opinion
Survey
(NPOS)
Acceptance of
multicultural
society
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Inability to
find a job
because of
ethnic origin,
gender,
physical and
mental
condition
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 135
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Community resources
Indicator
Gender equity
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Has gender
affected an
ability to find
a good job
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Community resources
Indicator
Participation in the political process
Data
source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Political
Support
Survey
(PSS)
Person
participates
in political
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey
(EDS)
Non-eligibility
to vote
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
National
Public
Opinion
Survey
(NPOS)
Person
participates
in political
activities
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Domain
Personal safety
Indicator
Victimization
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Whether
person was a
victim of
crime
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General
Rating of
Age, sex,
Province,
Language,
Ethnic
Education,
136 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Social Survey
(GSS) on
Victimization
safety from
attacks,
vandalism,
harassing,
drug dealing,
etc.
marital status
territory
mother
tongue
origin,
immigration
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Out-of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)
Whether left
job due to
safety concern
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
National
Public
Opinion
Survey
(NPOS)
Whether
safety
measures are
in place
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(VAWS)
Whether
threatened,
pushed,
grabbed or
attacked
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Indicators of Social Exclusion and Inclusion 137
Working Papers Volume 2, Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Personal safety
Indicator
Fear of crime
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Degree (from 1
to 5) of being
worried
becoming a
victim of a
crime
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General Social
Survey (GSS)
on
Victimization
Perceived scale
of safety from
crime in the
neighbourhood
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian Out-
of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)/CIEP
Whether had
to quit job
because of
safety
concerns such
as sexual
harassment
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
138 Labonté et al.
Working Papers Volume 2 Number 8. December 2011
Domain
Personal safety
Indicator
Discrimination
Data source
Measure
Disaggregation
Demographic
Geographic
Linguistic
Cultural
Equity
Canadian
Community
Health
Survey
(CCHS)
Experience of
being
discriminated
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
Ethnic
Diversity
Survey (EDS)
Frequency of
the experiences
of
discrimination
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
General
Social Survey
(GSS) on
Victimization
Experienced
discrimination
because of
gender,
ethnicity, colour
or physical
appearance
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
mother
tongue
Ethnic
origin,
immigration
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
Canadian
Out-of-
employment
Panel Survey
(COEPS)
Experience of
being
discriminated
Age, sex,
marital status
Province,
territory
Language,
birthplace
Ethnic
origin,
visible
minority
Education,
wage,
government
income,
pension
National
Public
Opinion
Survey
(NPOS)
Experience of
being
discriminated
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Birthplace
Ethnicity,
visible
minority
Education,
income
Violence
Against
Women
Survey
(VAWS)
Experience of
being
discriminated
Age, sex
Province,
territory
Language
Ethnicity
Education,
income,
government
income,
pension
