The Working Poor in Windsor Essex. Who are they, and how do they differ from the working non-poor?

Transcription

1 The Working Poor in Windsor Essex Who are they, and how do they differ from the working non-poor? Authored by Amy Peirone and Alex (Chi) Cheung April 2015

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 INTRODUCTION... 4 Research Questions... 5 Measurement of Variables... 5 How do we define working poor?... 5 DATA & ANALYSIS... 5 RESULTS... 6 Prevalence of the Working Poor... 6 Prevalence of the Working Poor by Census Tract... 6 Map 1: Percentage of working-poor individuals among the working population... 7 Some Key Features of the Working-Poor in the Windsor-Leamington Region Age... 9 Figure 1: Percentage of working non-poor and working-poor by age Immigrant Status... 9 Figure 2: Percentage of immigrants among working-non-poor and working-poor Map 2: Percentage of working-poor immigrants among the working population Education Figure 3: Percentage of working-age and working-poor persons by education Employment Figure 4: Number of weeks and hours worked, Windsor-Leamington, Occupation Figure 5: Percentage of people among working-poor and working non-poor working in sales and service occupations Marital Status Figure 8: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by marital status, Windsor CMA Figure 9: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by marital status, Leamington CA Family Status... 15

3 Figure 10: Percentage of working-age, working-poor and working non-poor persons by family status, Windsor region, Dwelling Figure 11: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Windsor CMA, Figure 12: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Leamington CA, Home Ownership Figure 13: Percentage of home ownership SUMMARY REFERENCES APPENDIX... 21

4 INTRODUCTION We have come to regard poverty and employment as mutually exclusive concepts, with employment often viewed as the stepping stone out of poverty. 1 What this notion fails to capture however, is the growing proportion of those in our society who can be classified as working poor. In a nutshell, working poor families are those who are playing by the rules by working and contributing to the productivity and prosperity (of the country) but yet struggle day to day to meet their basic needs. 2 In Canada for instance, nearly 1/5 th of households seeking assistance through food banks in 2013 were working or receiving employment insurance, while in Ontario specifically, 9.3% of those attending a food bank indicated their primary source of income was job income 3. It is not only individuals without income or on social assistance who are unable to meet their basic needs, but rather it is also those who are working. The grim reality is that working is no longer a guaranteed ticket out of poverty 4, and in order to address the deep rooted issues contributing to the presence of the working poor as a growing sub-population, public support is necessary. 5 Research exploring the prevalence of the working poor has been gaining attention in both the United States and Europe; however research in Canada and research that utilizes a consistent definition of the working poor is lacking. 6 Nevertheless, the published literature often reports similar characteristics of the working poor despite variations in the criteria used in defining and measuring working poor. For instance, research indicates that the working poor are concentrated in highly populated urban areas, 7 work most commonly in sales and service occupations, work a comparable number of hours to the working non-poor, have slightly less education, are younger, and are more likely to be single compared to the working non-poor. 8 Additionally, immigrants 9 and those who have work limitations 10 disproportionately experience working poverty. The negative effects of working poverty are vast and include an increased likelihood of problems related to housing and health for instance. 11 Due to a lack of improved employment opportunities and chances for advancement, the working poor are likely to remain in a persistent state of poverty unless substantial changes to poverty prevention and intervention strategies are implemented. 1 Fortin & Fleury, Ibid, p.1. 3 Hunger Count 2014, p Yalnizyan, 2012; Chen, Ross, Scott and Smith, Chen, 2005; Fortin & Fleury, 2006; Stapleton, Murphy, & Xing, Stapleton, Murphy, and Xing, 2012; National Council on Welfare, Fortin & Fleury, 2006; Stapleton, Murphy, & Xing, 2012; Wertheimer, Long & Jager, Chen, 2005; Stapleton, Murphy & Xing, Wertheimer, Long, & Jager, Ibid.

5 Research Questions The primary objective of this project was to obtain a better understanding of the working poor in the Windsor Ontario census metropolitan area (CMA) and Leamington Ontario census agglomeration (CA). By contextualizing the working poor population in these areas, three primary research questions guided this analysis: (1) What proportion of workers can be classified as working-poor in Windsor Ontario CMA? Leamington Ontario CA? (2) What geographical areas (specific census subdivisions and/or census tract locations) disproportionality experience working poverty? (3) What are some of the main factors associated with the working-poor in Windsor- Leamington, and how do they differ from the working non-poor and the working-age populations? Measurement of Variables How do we define working poor? Although there is no commonly understood definition of what it means to be working poor, this report adopted the approach by Stapleton, Murphy & Xing (2012) in The Working Poor in the Toronto Region. More specifically, a person is a member of the working poor if he/she is: Between the ages of Is not a student Has earnings of at least $3,000 per year Has an after-tax income below the Low Income Measure (LIM), and Lives independently DATA & ANALYSIS The data for this research was derived from the confidential microdata file of Statistics Canada s 2006 Census, and accessed in the Research Data Centre (RDC) at the University of Windsor 12. The Canadian Census is a representative study of the Canadian population and is conducted every five years. The 2006 data is an ideal source for research of this nature, as it provides a depiction of the Canadian population which can be broken down into specific geographical areas of interest including Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA s), Census Agglomerations (CA s), and Census Tracts (CT s). The focus of this research examined two geographical areas including 12 The census is conducted in May of each census year; however income data represents annual income for the previous calendar year (i.e. 2005), while geographical location is determined in spring of 2006.

6 Windsor Ontario CMA and Leamington Ontario CA for the 2006 census year. It is important to note however, that 2006 data is the most recently available data as the long-form Census was discontinued by the government, and therefore the data that has been collected since 2006 no longer includes detailed information at the individual level, precluding this type of comprehensive analysis using more recent data, and highlighting the key limitation of this analysis. The specific population of interest included the working-age population (ages 18-64) in Windsor CMA, and Leamington CA. The Windsor CMA includes the city of Windsor, and towns of Lakeshore, LaSalle, Tecumseh, and Amherstburg, while Leamington CA includes the municipality of Leamington and the town of Kingsville. The approach taken to this analysis was adapted from the Toronto report (Stapleton, Murphy & Xing, 2012), and applied to Census data for the Windsor-Leamington area. The goal was to describe in-depth who the working poor are, where they are located, and how they differ from the working non-poor and working-age populations. All variables were weighted appropriately to achieve population estimates. In addition, mapping software (ArcGIS) was utilized to provide graphical depictions of the concentration of working poor individuals throughout the census subdivisions in the Windsor- Leamington Region, as well as a more detailed depiction based on the Census tracts in the city of Windsor. RESULTS Prevalence of the Working Poor Results indicate a total of 131,510 working persons in Windsor-Leamington in Of these individuals, a total of 5, are classified as working poor in Windsor-Leamington in More specifically, 4.59% of the working population in Windsor CMA, and 3.24% of the working population in Leamington CA can be classified as working poor. The working-poor are by no means evenly distributed throughout the 7 census subdivisions, as the large majority of the working-poor in the Windsor-Leamington area reside in Windsor, followed by Leamington, LaSalle, Lakeshore, Tecumseh, Kingsville, and Amherstburg. Prevalence of the Working Poor by Census Tract To obtain a more detailed depiction of the concentration of the working poor in the city of Windsor an analysis was run utilizing census tract codes. A census tract is the smallest geographical unit on the Canadian census, with 70 different census tracts for the city of Windsor (See Map-1). 13 Please note: All values were rounded to the base of 5 to comply with Statistics Canada requirements to release data.

7 Map 1: Percentage of working-poor individuals among the working population Windsor Census Metropolitan area, 2006 Source: 2006 Canadian Census Created by: Carina Xue

8 Map-1 displays the proportion of working poor persons in each of the census subdivisions in Windsor-Leamington as well as the by census tract in Windsor. It is clear that Windsor has the highest proportion of the working poor; accounting for 6.22% of the city s working population, while the working poor in Lakeshore and Amherstburg account for less than 2.0% of the working population. The upper portion of Map-1 shows the distribution of the working poor by census tract in Windsor CMA, and indicates three particular areas with the highest concentration of the working poor. These census tracts include the downtown areas located on either side of Ouellette Avenue, spanning from Caron Avenue to Pierre Street, and north of Wyandotte Street to Riverside Drive. The third census tract with the highest proportion of the working poor is the area from Walker Road to Drouillard Road, and Seminole Street to Riverside Drive. Additional noteworthy areas with a relatively high concentration of the working poor include Sandwich area west of Huron Line, Glengarry area, and east Windsor, from Lauzon Road to Pillette Road, south of Tecumseh Road East to E.C Row Expressway. The lowest concentration of the working poor (less than 2% in the census tract) are found in South Windsor area. Map-2(below) shows the proportion of working poor immigrants in each of the census subdivisions throughout Windsor CMA. The highest proportion of working poor immigrants are found in Windsor, followed by Leamington and Tecumseh, Lakeshore and Kingsville, while LaSalle and Amherstburg have the lowest proportion of working poor immigrants. Some Key Features of the Working-Poor in the Windsor-Leamington Region 1. On average, they tend to be younger as a group compared to the working non-poor and working age populations 2. Immigrants are overrepresented among the working-poor 3. Their education levels are similar to, although slightly lower than the working non-poor and the working-age population as a whole 4. They have comparable levels of employment to the working non-poor 5. They are most commonly employed in the sales and service occupations 6. They are more likely to be single/unmarried, divorced, separated, and widowed compared to the working non-poor, who are more likely to be married and/or living common law. 7. They are more likely than the working non-poor to be living alone / without an adult partner 8. They are more likely to reside in apartments compared to the working non-poor 9. They are less likely to own their own homes compared to the working non-poor

9 1. The working-poor tend to be younger as a group compared to the working non-poor In Windsor CMA, the working-poor outnumber the working non-poor in the age ranges under 40 years old, while the working non-poor outnumber the working-poor in the age ranges of and 50-59, nearing almost an equal proportion of both working populations in the age range In Leamington, the working-poor outnumber the working non-poor in the age range 18-29, and 40-49, with the year range containing substantially more working-non-poor than working-poor. (See Fig-1 for a breakdown by age group). Figure 1: Percentage of working non-poor and working-poor by age Percentage of working nonpoor and working-poor by age, Windsor CMA, 2006 Percentage of working non-poor and working-poor by age, Leamington CA, 2006 Working non-poor Working-Poor Working non-poor Working-Poor 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% % 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Windsor Leamington 2. There are more immigrants among the working-poor While immigrants account for approximately ¼ of both the Windsor and Leamington working populations, they account for a higher proportion of the working poor in both Windsor CMA and Leamington CA, with 34% of immigrants in Windsor and 31% of immigrants in Leamington being classified as working poor. See Figure-2 for breakdown of the percentage of immigrants among the working nonpoor and the working-poor. See Map-2 for a distribution of working poor immigrants throughout Windsor CMA.

10 Figure 2: Percentage of immigrants among working-non-poor and working-poor Percentage of immigrants among working non-poor and workingpoor Working non-poor Working-poor 34.10% 34.37% 23.94% 23.86% 24.49% 31.31% Windsor-Leamington Windsor CMA Leamington CA Map 2: Percentage of working-poor immigrants among the working population Windsor Census Metropolitan Area, 2006 Source: 2006 Canadian Census Created by: Carina Xue

11 3. They have comparable levels of education On average, the working-poor are only slightly less educated than the working-age population and the working non-poor. While just under 40% of the working-poor in Windsor CMA report having higher education, approximately 45% of the working-age population and just over half of the working non-poor report the same. In Leamington CA, this difference is not as pronounced, as 32% of the working-age population, and 32% of the working-poor population report higher education. Nevertheless, a slightly higher proportion of the working non-poor report higher education (37.42%). Figure-3 compares the level of education among the working-age population, the working-poor, and the working non-poor for Windsor CMA, and Leamington CA. Figure 3: Percentage of working-age and working-poor persons by education Percentage of working-age and working-poor individuals by education, Windsor Region, % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% High school diploma or less working-age working-poor working nonpoor Windsor CMA Higher education working-age working-poor working nonpoor Leamington CA 4. They have comparable levels of employment On average, the working poor tend to work a similar number of weeks per year and hours per week as the working age population, and slightly less weeks and hours than the working non-poor Number of weeks worked refers to the number of weeks worked for pay in To obtain a measure of the number of hours worked in a week, respondents were asked to indicate the number of hours they worked for pay or in self-employment at all jobs they held during the week of May 7- May 13, 2006.

12 In Windsor, the working poor report working on average of 35 weeks/year and 25 hours/week, while the working non-poor work on average 47.5 weeks/ year and 35 hours/week. In Leamington, the working poor report working on average of 37.5 weeks/year and 30 hours/week, while the working non-poor work on average 45 weeks/year and 35 hours/week. Figure 4: Number of weeks and hours worked, Windsor-Leamington, 2006 Number of Weeks and Hours Worked, Windsor-Leamington, No. of Weeks Worked Working-Age Working Poor Working Non- Poor Windsor No. of Hours Worked Working-Age Working Poor Working Non- Poor Leamington 5. They work most commonly in sales and service occupations The working-poor are most commonly employed in the sales and service occupations. While approximately 1/5 of Windsor s working non-poor are employed in sales and service occupations, more than double this proportion of Windsor s working-poor (43.58%) work in these occupations, highlighting the disproportionate number of the working-poor in the sales and service occupations. In Leamington however, this difference is not as striking. While 16.70% of Leamington s working non-poor work in sales and services, a higher proportion of the working poor (23.85%) work in these occupations (See Figure-5 for graphical representation).

13 Figure 5: Percentage of people among working-poor and working non-poor working in sales and service occupations. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percentage of people working in sales and services working-poor working non-poor working-poor working non-poor Windsor CMA Leamington CA 6. They are more likely to be single/unmarried, divorced, separated, and widowed The working-poor are more likely to be single/unmarried, divorced, separated and widowed compared to the working non-poor and working-age populations in both Windsor CMA and Leamington CA. The overwhelming majority of the working non-poor in Windsor CMA are married or living common law (80.0%), while only 9.80% report they are single/never married. Among the working-poor, only 39.0% report being married or living common law, while 37.0% report being never married/single. This is over four times the proportion of the working non-poor reporting to be never married or single. Figure-6 compares the percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by marital status in Windsor CMA. In Leamington CA, the trend is similar (see Figure-7), with the working-age (69.69%) and working non-poor (85.10%) more likely than the working-poor (60.0%) to be married or living common law, while the working-poor are more likely than the working age and working non-poor to be single/never married, separated, divorced, or widowed.

14 Figure 8: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by marital status, Windsor CMA Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor people by marital status, Windsor CMA, 2006 Working-age Working-poor Working non-poor 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Married/ common law Separated Divorced Never married (single) Widowed Figure 9: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by marital status, Leamington CA Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor people by marital status, Leamington CA, 2006 Working-age Working-poor Working non-poor 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Married/ common law Separated Divorced Never married (single) Widowed Leamington CA

15 7. The working-poor are more likely than the working non-poor to be living alone/without an adult partner In Windsor, while almost 80.0% of the working non-poor reported residing with a partner (with or without children); half this proportion (39.0%) of the working poor reported the same. Residing alone was more commonly reported among the working poor (34.0%) compared to the working non-poor (13.0%) in Windsor CMA. Results from Leamington CA mimic these trends, with 85.0% of the working non-poor reporting they reside with an adult partner (with or without child), compared to only 60.0% of the working poor who report the same. While 29.0% of the working poor in Leamington CA report residing alone, only 9.51% of the working non-poor report this residential living arrangement. The working poor are also more likely to report being a lone parent compared to the working non-poor and working-age populations. Figure 10: Percentage of working-age, working-poor and working non-poor persons by family status, Windsor region, 2006 Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor by family status, Windsor region, 2006 Working-age Working-poor Working non-poor 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Person Living Alone Couples without child Couples with child Lone parent Person Living Alone Couples without child Couples with child Lone parent Windsor Leamington

16 8. They are more likely to reside in apartments compared to the working non-poor and working-age population The working-poor were found to be more likely than the working-age and working nonpoor to reside in apartments, and less likely to reside in single-detached houses. In Windsor CMA, 40.0% of the working-poor report residing in an apartment compared to only 15.0% of the working-age population, and 11.20% of the working non-poor (See Figure-11). In Leamington CA, 29.0% of the working-poor report residing in an apartment compared to only 8.0% of the working-age population, and 7.53% of the working non-poor (See Figure -12). Figure 11: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Windsor CMA, 2006 Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Windsor CMA, 2006 Working non-poor Working-poor Working-age 90% 75% 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% Single detached house Semi-detached Row house Apartment in a flat/duplex Apartment in building Windsor CMA *Less than 1% of each of these populations reside in a mobile home or other single attached building. As a result, these categories were removed from this figure.

17 Figure 12: Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Leamington CA, 2006 Percentage of working-age, working-poor, and working-non-poor by dwelling type, Leamington CA, 2006 Working non-poor Working-poor Working-age 90% 75% 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% Single detached house Semi-detached Row house Apartment in a flat/duplex Apartment in building Leamington CA *Less than 1% of each of these populations reside in a mobile home or other single attached building. As a result, these categories were removed from this figure. 9. The working-poor are less likely to own their homes compared to the working non- poor Home ownership is less likely among the working-poor in Windsor, with only 28.0% of the working-poor indicating they own their own homes compared to 62.0% of the working non-poor, and 54.0% of the working age population. In Leamington the results are similar, with only 39.0% of the working-poor reporting to own their homes, compared to 57.0% of the working non-poor and 49.0% of the working-age population. Figure 13: Percentage of home ownership Percentage of home ownership among working-age, working-poor, and working non-poor Working-Age Working Poor Working Non- Poor Windsor Working-Age Working Poor Working Non- Poor Leamington

18 SUMMARY What do we know, and where do we go from here? The results of this analysis provide insight into the working poor in the Windsor-Leamington region. It is clear that working does not guarantee one s security and position away from poverty, which highlights key areas to focus policy analysis, development, and future programs on. In Windsor-Leamington, we have learned the working poor are highly concentrated in the city of Windsor, followed by Leamington, LaSalle, Tecumseh, and Kingsville, with Lakeshore and Amherstburg containing the lowest proportions of the working poor in this Census Metropolitan Area. Specifically looking at the city of Windsor, it is clear that particular areas including downtown and Sandwich area, with additional concentrations in the east end of Windsor and Glengarry area tend to have higher proportions of the working poor compared to other areas of the city such as South Windsor for instance, which has a very low concentration of the working poor. This analysis was conducted using 2006 data, pointing to a key limitation of this study. Due to governmental cuts to the long form Census, detailed data of this nature is no longer collected by the Federal government, resulting in 2006 data as the most recently available. As a result, trends over time cannot be analyzed, nor can this analysis be conducted with more recent data. Given that income disparity and poverty continues to grow 15, it can only be assumed that the proportion of the working poor in Windsor-Leamington also continues to grow. However, with cuts by the Federal government in terms of data collection, we are quite restricted in conducting up to date, evidence-based research of this nature. Future research exploring the patterns, incidences and characteristics of working poverty at the municipal level in Windsor and across the Windsor- Essex region are needed. This report was intended to offer a snapshot into the prevalence of and characteristics of working poverty in the Windsor region. Moreover, it provides additional background and context for a greater discussion on methods of addressing working poverty. If working or being employed is not enough to provide safeguards to keep individuals out of poverty, then additional methods, policies, initiatives, or programs to address this should be a key focus and goal. Instituting a living wage for instance represents an ideal initiative to address working poverty in the Windsor- Leamington region. 15 The Conference Board of Canada (2011)

19 REFERENCES Chen, W. (2005). Examining the working poor in Canada: Is working a ticket out of poverty? Family and Labour Studies. Statistics Canada. Accessed November 12, Fleury, D., and Fortin, M. (2006). When Working is Not Enough to Escape Poverty: An Analysis of Canada s Working Poor. Ottawa: Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Food Banks Canada (2014) Hunger Count 2014: A Comprehensive report on hunger and food bank use in Canada, and recommendations for change. Kornberger, R., Fast, J.E., & Williamson, D.L. (2001). Welfare or work: Which is better for Canadian children? Canadian Public Policy, 27(4), Levitan, S.A., & Shapiro, I. (1987). Working but poor: America s contradiction. The John Hopkins University Press. United States of America. Maxwell, L (2003). The working poor in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Research Brief, Vol And-Albemarle-County. Accessed on November 12, National Council of Welfare (1981). The working poor: people and programs. ISBN Ross, D.P., Scott, K.J., and Smith, P.J. (2000). The Canadian fact book on poverty The Canadian Council on Social Development. Ottawa. Stapleton, J., Murphy, B., & Xing, Y. (2012). The working poor in the Toronto Region: Who they are, where they live, and how trends are changing. Funded by the Metcalf Foundation. Toronto-Region.pdf. Statistics Canada (2011). Focus on geography series, 2011 Census. Census metropolitan area of Windsor, Ontario. The Conference Board of Canada (2011). Canada Inequality: Is Canada becoming more unequal? Wertheimer, R., Long, M., & Jager, J. (2002). Children in working poor families: update and extensions. Child Trends. Produced for The Foundation for Child Development _10_01_FR_WorkingPoor.pdf.

20 Yalnizyan, A. (2012). Why Canada must get rid of its bad jobs. The Globe and Mail.

21 APPENDIX Measurement of Variables: In constructing the working-poor variable, the following criteria were utilized: Age: Individuals between the ages of 18 and 64 years comprise the working-age population, as those outside of this age range are likely to have relatively low levels of labour force participation. Moreover, the age of majority in Ontario is 18 years, while an individual who is 65 years of age is eligible for Old Age Security and Canadian Pension Plan. Student Status: Students were eliminated from the working sample as their primary status is that of a student, as opposed to an active member of the labour force. Although many students are employed, they can be classified, as deferring their income requirements to a point in the future 16 and therefore would not be characteristic of the working population. Earnings: To be considered employed, individuals must have reported at least $3,000 per year in earnings 17. Poverty status: The Low-Income Measure (LIM) is a measure of low-income which is calculated at 50% of the median income for the entire Canadian population each year. Poverty was defined as having an after-tax income below the LIM set by Statistics Canada. Independent Living: In an attempt to avoid any misrepresentation of those who receive substantial financial support as poor, those who live with their parents, grandparents, or any other adult family members were excluded. Populations of Interest: The report discusses the results of analysis in reference to three primary groups of individuals. These include: The working-age population, the working-poor, and the working non-poor. Working-Age: The working age population refers to all individuals aged years. Working-Poor: The working-poor are between the ages of 18-64, they are not a student, their after tax earnings are less than the LIM but greater than $3,000/year, and they live independently. Working Non-Poor: The working non-poor refer to all individuals who meet the criteria of the working-poor; however their income is greater than the LIM set by Statistics Canada. Working Population: The working population refers to the working-poor and the working non-poor combined. 16 Stapleton et al., 2012, p This income floor was rationalized on the basis that it is the threshold used by the Federal government in determining a recipient s eligibility for the Federal Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), introduced to help those who are working with low wages to rise above the need for social assistance programs (Stapleton et al. (2012) Note: All the figures reported are for individuals, not households or families.