Since the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton published its fi rst report on women and poverty in Ham-ilton, women remain dispro-portionately aff ected by pov-erty in our community. The last census showed that

in 2005 just under 90,000 per-sons in Hamilton were living on incomes below Statistics Canada’s “Low Income Cut-Off ’ (LICO)†, Canada’s most commonly used poverty line. Of this number almost 40,000 were females 15 years or older. Women 15 and over represent 43% of Hamilton’s total low income population, while men in the same age group age make up 32% of the total and children under 15 represent 25% of the total.But the picture of poverty in

Hamilton is multi-faceted and

aff ects women from diff erent groups in unique ways. In this report, we will show more de-tail and analysis to bett er un-derstand the many realities of women across Hamilton living on incomes below the poverty line.

Women’s income gap persistsThe gap that continues to exist

between women’s and men’s incomes in Canada is present in Hamilton as well. As women’s participation in

the labour force and education levels have increased (and as women are having few chil-dren), there has been some increases in women’s incomes, but there remains a signifi cant gap between the sexes. Even when we look just at

full-time full-year workers,

the gap between women’s and men’s incomes is substantial with women in the Hamilton CMA* earning 73% of men’s wages and lower than the On-tario rate of 78% (Chart 1).One of the most important

reasons for the continuing gap in incomes is the ongoing segregation in employment between “men’s work” and “women’s work”. Jobs primar-ily occupied by women are more oft en lower paid because the work they do is not as val-ued by the labour market.

“The traditional role of women in society explain[s] in part the lower salaries paid to women.[…] Certain jobs or profes-sions engaged in by women oft en require skills that were consid-ered an extension of the work done by women in the home: helping others, availability, me-ticulousness, etc. Be-cause these aspects of the work were seen as ‘innately’ female, they were ignored when came time to determine the women’s salaries.”– Quebec Pay Equity Commission (2005). Are Salaries Still Based on Gender?

The other major factor is that

women continue to shoulder the main housework and par-enting responsibilities, leav-ing less time for paid employ-ment. In Hamilton, women are al-

most twice as likely than men to do 15 hours or more of housework (preparing food, cleaning, paying bills, etc) per week and 70% more women than men are doing 15 hours or more of unpaid childcare (Chart 2).Childcare in particular is a

major barrier for many wom-en to participate more fully in the paid labour force. A KPMG audit found that lack of childcare is the most im-portant challenge women face when trying to leave social as-sistance in Ontario.Childcare fees in Hamilton

for 2.5 to 5 year olds are in the range of $700-$900 per month, with even higher rates for younger kids. Lower income families can access the City of Hamilton’s Childcare Subsidy Program, but the latest data shows there are 847 families on that program’s waiting list due to demand outpacing the funding allocated to the pro-gram.For women att ending school

on a part-time basis or work-ing less than 20 hours per week, there is no choice but to pay full fees as they are not eli-gible for the subsidy program. Finding a part-time job is oft en easier than fi nding full-time employment, but for low in-come women with young chil-dren, the wages of a part-time job may barely cover childcare fees.

† For example, for a single mom with one child in 2005, the LICO was $25,884 in large cities such as Hamilton. * CMA is the abbreviation for Census Metropolitan Area, and for Hamilton includes Burlington and Grimsby. CMA data is only used in this report when data for the City of Hamilton alone is not available. While the City of Hamilton makes up the largest part of the Hamilton CMA, the higher incomes in Burlington increases the income data for the Hamilton CMA as compared to the City of Hamilton.Unless otherwise noted, all data is from the 2006 Census of Canada, Statistics Canada. (Charts based on income data are labeled 2005 as that is the year for which income was reported in the 2006 census.)

This report was produced by the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, with the fi nancial support of the United Way of Burlington and Greater Hamilton. Web: www.sprc.hamilton.on.ca Email: sprc@sprc.hamilton.on.ca Phone: 905-522-1148

Chart 1. Median income for full-time, full-year workers, by sex, Hamilton CMA and Ontario, 2005

Agency

Gender analysis reveals complex picture of incomes and poverty in Hamilton Chart 2. Unpaid childcare and housework by sex,City of Hamilton, 2006

24%

76%

14%

86%

44%

56%

24%

76%

15 or more hours per week

Less than 15 hours per week

15 or more hours per week

Less than 15 hours per week

Hou

sew

ork

Chi

ldca

re

Women

Men

$52,960$50,057

$38,813 $38,914

Hamilton CMA Ontario

Men

Women

AgAggAggAgAgAgAgAgAAgAgAAggAgAggAgAAAgAgAAgAgAgeeneeeneneneeneneneneneneneneeneeeeeneneneneneenenee cycycycycycycyycyyycycycyycyycyyy

f

Report prepared by: Sara Mayo, Social Planner (Geographic Information Systems), May 2010

Chart 3 illustrates that new-comer women, visible minor-ity and Aboriginal women in experience large income dis-parities as compared to other women in Hamilton.More than half of low income

newcomers and visible minor-ities (both females and males) have incomes under $10,000 per year.Looking at the median in-

come of low income persons within each group, we see that in most groups low income women have higher median incomes than low income men. The principal reason for this

may be that for most families with children, federal and pro-vincial child benefi t income is assigned to women through the tax system and child ben-efi ts are a bigger proportion of low income women’s incomes than for all women. The dif-ference may also be due to the types of jobs that low income women and men are most of-ten working.Recent immigrants are the

only group where low income women have a lower median income than low income men. This could due in part to re-cent immigrant families not

being eligible for some child benefi ts for up to a year aft er they arrive in Canada. Some child benefi ts also require spe-cifi c applications, and new-comers may not be aware yet of the steps to take to receive this income.The racialization of poverty

creates a layered eff ect for the most marginalized women in Hamilton with a woman’s gender intersecting with her ethno-cultural background. These eff ects can be further exacerbated if she is an immi-grant, a lesbian and/or has a disability.

Older women are more than twice as likely to be living in poverty as older men (Chart 5). This is in large part due to older men having more access to employment-related retire-ment benefi ts. As discussed in the SPRC’s

2009 Incomes and Poverty in Hamilton report, senior pov-erty rates have decreased sig-nifi cantly both in Canada and in Hamilton thanks to to in-creasing participation of wom-en in the paid labour force and increasing number of seniors receiving the Guaranteed In-come Supplement.The senior women’s poverty

rate though remains above the average for the female popula-tion in Hamilton and included 8,390 women over age 65 in 2005.A further analysis shows that

the rates of poverty for single female seniors is much higher than for the general popula-tion of women 65 and older. In 2005, 44% of female seniors living alone in the Hamil-ton CMA were experiencing poverty, representing 8,715 women. Although the rate is still very high, it has also been dropping. In 2000 the rate was 55% representing 10,455 wom-en in the Hamilton CMA.

Single moms with the young-est children face the greatest challenges in terms of income. More than 7 in 10 of female lone parents with children un-der 6 in the Hamilton CMA are living in poverty (Chart 6). Across Canada, single moms

have much higher poverty rates than single dads. In the Hamilton, CMA, 57% of fe-male lone parents with chil-dren under 18 are living in poverty compared to 30% for male lone parents.In the last decades female

lone parent poverty rates have been decreasing in Canada and a Statistics Canada study

att ributed female lone parents earning more employment in-come because they are oft en older and bett er educated than in previous years. Younger fe-male lone parents on the other hand experienced a decrease in their employment earnings in the 1980-2000 period. The National Council of Welfare has also credited government policies, especially changes to child benefi ts such as the Na-tional Child Benefi t for some improvement in the economic wellbeing of female lone par-ents.Since the 2006 census, the

Ontario Child Tax benefi t has been introduced and currently

gives $1,100 per child to low income families.For parents on social assis-

tance, however, this money replaces some previous extra payments from their Ontario Works cheques and female lone parents in particular are seeing very litt le diff erence in their income with the new system. For example, a female lone parent of a child over 12 is only receiving $1 extra per month. Nevertheless, the ad-vantage remains for families receiving Ontario Works that they can now keep this part of their income when they gain employment.

The general poverty rate for women in Hamilton is 20%, higher than the provincial av-erage of 16% but signifi cantly lower than Toronto (25%). Hamilton’s single women, however, have the highest pov-erty rates among Ontario’s cit-ies, including Toronto. Female unatt ached individuals, oft en women living alone or with roommates, in Hamilton have a poverty rate of 46%, more than four percentage points above the second ranked city, Toronto (Chart 4). Part of the disparity is likely

due to the educational diff er-

ences between single women in Hamilton as Toronto. In Hamilton, single women are more likely to have no diplo-ma (31%) than any university education (19%), while in To-ronto the opposite is true (18% of single women have no di-ploma, and 37% have universi-ty education). The educational disparities between the cities are bigger for single women than women in general. This could be due in part to edu-cated single women leaving Hamilton.

Racialization of poverty evident in Hamilton

Female lone parents’ poverty rates vary signifi cantly with age of children

Single women are particularly disadvantaged in Hamilton

Biggest gender gap in poverty rates is between male and female seniors

Chart 6. Poverty rates of female lone parentsby age of children, Hamilton CMA and Ontario, 2005

Chart 5. Percentage of persons living on incomes below the poverty line,by sex and selected groups, City of Hamilton, 2005

Chart 3. Median income by sex and selected groups, City of Hamilton, 2005

Chart 4. Women’s poverty rates, Cities ofHamilton and Toronto and Ontario, 2005

20%16%

43%

35%39%

20%

27%21%

50% 51%

22%

10%

46%

37% 35% 33%

22% 20%

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

Wom

en

Men

General population

Aboriginals Lone parents

Persons with activity limitations

Recent immigrants

Seniors Unattached Individuals

Visible minorities

Youth 15-24

$20,585

$34,518

$16,934

$25,052

$10,923

$16,654

$15,741

$22,146

$13,197

$10,564

$14,183

$11,612

$8,254

$9,214

$9,702

$9,067

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Gen

eral

po

pula

tion

Abo

rigin

als

Rec

ent

imm

igra

nts

Vis

ible

m

inor

ities

Hollow bars (numbers in black): Median income of all persons in each group who are 15 years of age and older with at least some income.

Solid bars (numbers in white):Median income of only persons in each group living on incomes below the poverty line who are 15 years of age and older with at least some income.

20%

46%

26%

42%

16%

36%

All females Female unattached individuals

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Ont

ario

Ham

ilton

Toro

nto

Ont

ario

36%

57%

71%

47%

19%

32%

48%

65%

39%

19%

All female lone-parent families

With children under 18 only

With children under 6 years only

With children 6 to 17 years only

With children 18 and over only

Hamilton CMA

Ontario

8.885 low income families

6,405 low income families

1,345 low income families

1,505 low income families

← 2,475 low income families

15,467 women →

In Hamilton’s population as a whole, 7% of women who work full-time all year long have wages that still fall un-der the poverty line (Chart 7). In all other groups examined, the poverty rates of full-time workers are even higher.Recent immigrants in partic-

ular have substantially higher rates of poverty among full-time workers, with almost one quarter of women working full-time for wages that don’t even reach the poverty line.

Within the general popula-tion, aboriginals and persons with activity limitations full- time working women have higher poverty rates than full- time working men. This is in large part due to women in these groups working in types of occupations with lower pay than their male counterparts. Conversely, in the recent im-migrant and visible minority groups full-time working men have higher poverty rates than full-time working women.This snapshot was taken in

2005, when Ontario’s mini-mum wage was $7.45 per hour and had only increased 60 cents in the previous 10 years. More recently, there have been sub-stantial increases to the mini-mum wage, and it now stands at $10.25. These increases will likely have positive impacts for the working poor in Ham-ilton, including women. The most common occupa-

tions for Hamilton women include many types of ser-vice and assisting occupations (Table 1). These occupations

usually pay lower wages than traditional male occupations in industries such as manufac-turing and construction. This is a major reason we see the gap between women and men’s in-comes and poverty rates. Table 1 also illustrates that

the groups who have the high-est poverty rates are over rep-resented in highly insecure and low paid occupations. For example, 4.7% of Aboriginal women and 5.4% of recent immigrant women work as machine operators in manu-

facturing (such as sewing machine operators). The third most common occupation for female lone parents is assis-tants in health services, oft en personal support workers, among the lowest paid occu-pations in the health sector.Some occupations in the

top fi ve list for women as a whole are more secure and bett er paid, such as teachers and nurses. These occupa-tions though are absent from the top fi ve list for Aboriginal women.

All women

Aboriginal women

Recentimmigrantwomen

Femaleloneparents

Women with activity imitations

Assisting occupations in support of health services

6.0%

Cashiers 5.3%

Clerical occupations 14.2% 10.3% 8.3% 15.3% 14.3%

Machine operators in manufacturing

4.7% 5.4%

Nurse supervisors and registered nurses

3.8% 4.6% 4.0%

Retail salespersons and salesclerks

5.9% 5.3% 6.4% 4.6% 6.4%

Sales and service not otherwise classifi ed

10.5% 13.1% 11.7% 11.2% 12.4%

Teachers and professors 5.7% 5.1% 4.4%

Recessions and De-industrializationRestructuring the economy and workplaces

has devalued men’s wages andmade women’s employment even more crucial

Why are so many full-time working women in Hamilton still living in poverty?

Women’s Coalition

A feasibility study is current-ly underway to gauge interest and develop strategies for a Hamilton Women’s Coalition. This eff ort is led the YWCA Hamilton and the Immigrant Women’s Centre. They are seeking to track and report on indicators for women’s prog-ress, including women’s pov-

erty in Hamilton, and advo-cate for policies that improve women’s lives and strate-gies to promote the status of women in our community, “The health and prosperity of this city depends on the well-being of its mothers, wives, sisters and daughters,” says Ines Rios, Executive Director of IWC. “I am joined by this city’s other community lead-

ers to fi ght inequality and cre-ate a bett er future for us all.”

Elect More Women

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has received funding from the Federal Government’s Status of Wom-en Offi ce to help cities achieve the goal of electing 30% wom-

en in municipal seats. This ef-fort is being promoted locally by Elect More Women a non-partisan coalition of Hamil-ton women who training and supporting women candi-dates in the upcoming munic-ipal elections, supported by the City of Hamilton’s Status of Women Advisory Commit-tee. Compared to other juris-dictions in Canada, Hamilton

has a very low rate of female elected offi cials - in the 2006 municipal elections, only 16% of candidates were women. A United Nation report showed that electing more gender bal-anced legislatures leads to policies that improve wom-en’s lives such as increases to minimum wage and bett er childcare programs.

Women working for change in Hamilton

Chart 7. Percentage of full-time, full-year workers livingon incomes below the poverty line, by sex and selected groups, City of Hamilton, 2005

1st

1st1st

1st

1st 1st

Table 1. Top fi ve occupations for selected groups, City of Hamilton, 2006

Percentage of women in each group who work in each occupation

indicates most common occupation for each group of women

1st

Chart 8. Median incomes by sex, Hamilton CMA, 1976-2007Adjusted for infl ation using constant 2007 dollars(Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics)

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Males

Females

Recession Recession

As the SRPC detailed in its 2009 Incomes and Poverty in Hamilton report, recent re-cessions have impacted men’s incomes more heavily than women’s incomes, largely due men occupying more jobs in manufacturing and related sectors. Chart 8 shows that the 1990s recession in particu-lar was devastating to men’s wages in the Hamilton CMA. Unlike in the 1980s recession, men’s incomes in the 1990s did not recover once the recession was offi cially over. The newest data for 2007

shows another precipitous de-

cline in men’s incomes, with their income now the lowest ever recorded in our region. We expect this trend to be in

tensifi ed by the latest reces-sion which started in the fall of 2008.For families bearing the brunt

of the “He-cessions”, women’s employment and incomes have become even more cru-cial to their economic survival,

putt ing pressure on women as the primary wage-earners and men as the ones trying to re-gain a foothold in the labour market. These income trends have im-

pacts on family stress, family breakdown and family health. Precarious employment (un-stable, short-term and/or part-time) is particularly harmful to family life. Wayne Lew-chuck of McMaster University recently published a study showing a link between these types of employment situa-tions and negative health out-comes.

7%

6%

15%

11%

16%

8%

23%

28%

12%

14%

14%

11%

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Gen

eral

po

pula

tion

Abor

igin

als

Pers

ons

with

ac

tivity

lim

itatio

nsR

ecen

t im

mig

rant

sVi

sibl

e m

inor

ities

Yout

h 15

-24

← 4,420 women

Women’s poverty rates vary across HamiltonWomen’s poverty is not evenly distrib-

uted in our city. As compared to the map of overall poverty in the SPRC’s 2009 In-comes and Poverty report (page 11), the distribution of female poverty is very similar, with highest rates downtown and parts of east Hamilton and lowest rates in Ancaster, Flamborough and Glanbrook. However almost all communities within the city have areas of above average pov-erty rates.The map “Working Poor Women” shows

that the distribution of the women who are are working full-time but earning less than poverty wages follows a simi-lar geogrpahical patt ern. Ward 2 has the highest rate of full-time working women living in poverty (19%). This represents

860 women in this ward, with an addi-tional 250 part-time (full year) working women living in poverty.

The size of the gap between the rich-est and poorest areas of the city has also been increasing in recent years. While in 1995, Ancaster’s full-time full year work-ing women were making on average 34% more than working women in the former municipality of Hamilton, by 2005 this gap had grown to 48% (aft er adjusting for infl ation). Dundas’ full-time working women have seen the largest increase in their incomes, from $41,252 in 1995 to $52,206 in 2005, a 27% increase. The cor-responding increase in the former munic-ipality of Hamilton was only 6%.

Average income of full-time, full year working womenby Communities within the City of Hamilton, 1995-2005

(Income data adjusted for infl ation, using 2005 constant dollars)Data Source: Statistics Canada, 1996 and 2006 Census of Canada

305

860

525

430 455

320

450

255180

115 105160

12560 80

190250 240 255 225

185

375

255

75 75 55110 120

35 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Full-time (full year)Part-time (full year)

14

11

15

12

5

9

78

4

6

1 313 2

10

Data Source: 2006 Census of Canada, Statistics Canada

2% - 3%

4% - 5%

6% - 8%

9% - 12%

19%

www.sprc.hamilton.on.caProduced May 2010

Working Poor Women

Women working full- and part-time (all year long) and living onincomes below the LICO, by City of Hamilton ward, 2005

% of full-time full year working womem living on incomesbelow the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) (before tax)†

City of Hamilton Wards2005

† For example, for a single mom with one child in 2005,the before tax LICO was $25,884 in large cities such as Hamilton.

Community ofFlamborough

Community ofDundas

Community ofAncaster

Community ofGlanbrook

Community ofStoney Creek

Community ofHamilton

City of Hamiltonby Planning Units (Neighbourhoods)

Female Poverty Rates (2005)

Data Source:2006 Census of Canada, Statistics Canada

Escarpment

Highways

Communities within the City of Hamilton

0% - 9.1%

9.2% - 18.1%

18.2% - 27.2%

27.3% - 36.3%

36.4% - 60.6%

No data

% of females (all ages) living on incomes belowthe Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) (before tax)†

City of Hamilton average for both males and females (18.1%)

Number ofneighbourhoods

in each range

53

59

37

19

13

www.sprc.hamilton.on.ca† For example, for a single mom with one child in 2005,the LICO was $25,884 in large cities such as Hamilton.

Produced May 2010

Osler

Eigh

th

Burlington

Wel

lingt

onW

entw

orth

Sher

man

King

Highw

ay 6

Lincoln Alexander Parkway Red

Hill V

all

ey P

ar

kw

ay

Queen Elizabeth WayBarton

Main

Rymal

York

Mohawk

Garner

Gar

th

Fifty

Wilson

Fennell

High

way

403

Stone Church

King

Beach

Queenston

Governor's

Nas

h

Mud

Mille

n

Gag

e

Wes

t 5th

Otta

wa

Upp

er G

age

Gre

en

Gra

y

Park

dale

Jerseyville

HighlandU

pper

Otta

wa

Que

en

Lawrence

Keni

lwor

th

Glo

ver

Frui

tlandUpp

er P

arad

ise

Binkley

Fors

yth

Lew

is

Church

Jam

es Private

The maps in this report were made possible by funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation for the SPRC’s Community Mapping Service.

$38,338

$36,022

$38,785

$42,265

$41,252

$48,525

$42,887

$38,101

$44,384

$50,722

$52,206

$56,476

Stoney Creek

Hamilton

Glanbrook

Flamborough

Dundas

Ancaster20051995