Belonging is “simply a part of a collective we. It’s a two-way street: It’s about communities sending signals of acceptance and inclusion, and about individuals cultivating their own connections to community. A sense of belonging is important to build safe, vibrant communities, and it brings purpose to our lives….
“What do money and work have to do with belonging? It turns out, a lot. For many people, workplaces are important places of belonging. On the other hand, precarious employment and poverty create barriers for people to be involved in their communities and can magnify a sense of being on the outside of our prosperous society.”
Belonging: exploring connection to community
Community Foundations of Canada 2017
Table of contents
Community Activities and Work Uncertainty
How does Hamilton-Burlington measure up for millennials
In 2015, Hamilton Community Foundation’s Vital Signs report looked at the city’s economic renaissance and how widely its benefits were shared by Hamiltonians. Among its findings: the growth rate of Hamilton’s young adult population was outstripping both its neighbouring communities and the province overall. The study found this group — attracted by the city’s quality of life, historical character, arts, culture, access to nature, lower housing prices than Toronto, growing emphasis on sustainable transportation etc. and growth of employment networks like HIVE –, to be “a major driving force of Hamilton’s renaissance” and new optimism, but cautioned about the importance of a welcoming labour market for that optimism to be sustained.
Hamilton’s Millennials and Community Belonging looks a little deeper into that topic, presenting a snapshot of upcoming research from McMaster University on the city’s millennials and the impact of precarious work. Specifically, this snapshot looks at some of the drivers of belonging and community engagement, including volunteering and participation in community events, as well as millennials’ overall sense of optimism about work, connections and prospects for the future.
We offer this brief narrative as part of our ongoing efforts to stimulate dialogue, engagement and action towards a vibrant, inclusive Hamilton — a place where everyone belongs.
Read more about how Hamilton Community Foundation is working toward that goal in our 2017 annual report: A Place to Belong.
Hamilton Millennials and Community Belonging: Preliminary findings from the 2017 Hamilton Millennial Survey
Researcher: Jeffrey C. Martin, BA, MA, APR, FCPRS
Supervisor: Dr. Wayne Lewchuk, LIUNA Chair in Global Labour Issues, McMaster University
The Hamilton Millennial Survey
Hamilton Millennials and Community Belonging was prepared for Hamilton Community Foundation and provides preliminary results to selected questions from the full Hamilton Millennial Survey to be published in early 2018. The full survey looks at young adults who live and work in Hamilton, comparing their work experiences and the effect on their social and economic wellbeing, with those of other generations. Much, if not all, of the research and literature on precarious work has used gender, race, age, Indigenous- and immigrant-status but little, if any, research has studied it from a generational point of view.
The Hamilton Millennial Survey study’s methodology included both qualitative (personal interviews) and quantitative (online survey) data gathering and was approved by the McMaster University Research Ethics Board. The survey was conducted between April 1 and May 7, 2017. Eligible individuals were born between 1982 and 1997, and had worked for pay in the previous three months. A total of 1,817 eligible respondents participated in the full 89-question survey; this report looks at 1,246 millennials who had Hamilton and Burlington postal codes and were not fulltime students.
The Millennials
Millennials are the largest generation both in Canada and in Hamilton, representing 25-28% of the city’s population, and outnumbering their parents, the baby boomers. Hamilton has a higher proportion of millennials than Ontario. Today, Hamilton has become one of the most economically diverse cities in Canada, offering a greater range of employment opportunities and, until recently, much more affordable housing than Toronto and other GTA municipalities.
But with that growth and diversity has come far more precarious work. Preliminary results from the full Hamilton Millennial Survey suggest that precarious employment is now becoming the norm for a significant portion of an entire generation of workers who are well-educated and trained. The millennials may possibly be the first generation to experience a lower standard of living than previous generations, including their parents.
The PEPSO Study and Employment Precarity Index
Findings presented in this excerpt from the study are compared, where indicated, with results for the city of Hamilton’s overall population age 35 to 65, using studies in precarious employment conducted by the Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario (PEPSO) research group in 2011 and 2014.
The report also breaks down the millennial population by PEPSO’s Employment Precarity Index, which was developed to provide a more precise way of identifying precarious employment. The Index is used to divide the sample into four employment security categories – secure, stable, vulnerable or precarious. The Index includes 13 measures of the form of the employment relationship and measures of the characteristics of employment, including:
How would you describe your sense of belonging to the community in which you live?
Sense of belonging to the community
Figure 1:
Hamilton millennials vs. general Hamilton population
Figure 2:
Hamilton millennials by employment precarity
Overall, there is a strong attachment to community in both the Hamilton Millennial Survey and the PEPSO studies. Hamilton millennials’ sense of belonging to the community is slightly less than the general population (Hamilton) who participated in the 2011 PEPSO study. Specifically, 67% of Hamilton millennials and 78% of the general population indicated their sense of belonging to their communities was strong/very strong across all four of the employment categories — from 75% of those in secure employment to 64% of those in precarious work. These results suggest the strong sense of belonging to the Hamilton community goes beyond the realm of work and that other factors about Hamilton may be having a positive impact on millennials.
Volunteering involves applying your expertise, ideas, energy and labour to support an organization without being paid. In the last 12 months, how many hours per month did you volunteer on average?
Number of hours volunteered in past 12 months
Figure 3:
Hamilton millennials vs. general Hamilton population
Figure 4:
Hamilton millennials by employment precarity (%)
Millennials and the general Hamilton population do a similar amount of volunteering. Just over one-third of both groups have not volunteered at all in the last 12 months. As shown in Figure 4, the level of precarity does not seem to have an impact on the number of hours volunteered; however, precariously employed millennials volunteer more hours at the high end. Overall, volunteering is hard to interpret as some people may work precariously so they can volunteer more. Others may volunteer less as they may be spending their time looking for work.
Thinking about the reasons why you volunteer, which of the following were important to you? Select as many as appropriate.
Reasons for volunteering
Figure 5: Hamilton millennials vs. general Hamilton population
Figure 6: Hamilton millennials by employment precarity (%)
Millennials are more likely to volunteer for job opportunities and networking, whereas the general population is more likely to volunteer for family benefit and to contribute to their community. Among the general Hamilton population who volunteer, 89% do so to contribute to the community compared with just over half of millennials. Further the Hamilton general population volunteers more to benefit family (52%) compared to millennials (18%) who are less likely to have established a family.
Figure 6 breaks this down further showing that Hamilton millennials in precarious work volunteer at almost twice the rate of those in secure employment, regardless of the reason for volunteering. Just over four in 10 precariously employed millennials volunteer to network, more than twice as many millennials as in secure or stable employment. Not surprisingly, the proportion of millennials who volunteer to improve job opportunities almost doubles from 19.5% for those in secure employment to 36% for those in precarious employment.
In the last 12 months, did you do any of the following? Multiple responses were allowed.
In the last 12 months, did you attend or do any of the following?
Figure 7: Hamilton millennials (%)
Millennials participate in or attend a variety of activities in the greater Hamilton community. The top five activities include attending a music event/festivals (68.5%), an event sponsored by a professional organization (59.2%), and adult recreation or sports club/group (38%), attending a religious or faith services (32%), and attending a school meeting/event (30%).
How often does uncertainty about your work schedule prevent or limit you from doing any of the above community activities?
How often work schedule limits community activity
Figure 8: Hamilton millennials (%)
Approximately one in four millennials reported often/always, and almost one in three sometimes that uncertainty about their work schedule prevents or limits them from doing any of the identified community activities. However, when viewed through the employment precarity index, the results reinforce the negative impact that work schedule uncertainty has on vulnerable and precarious workers. Three-quarters of Hamilton millennials in secure employment reported never/rarely did schedule uncertainty limit their community activity, compared with 22% of precarious workers. Only 8% of millennials in secure employment reported that schedule uncertainty limits their community activity often/always, compared to 47% of those in precarious employment. Precarious workers are more than eight times more likely to always have their community activities limited by their work schedule uncertainty.
Figure 9: Good work opportunities
Figure 10: Good networking opportunities
Work opportunities
Millennials are split on whether Hamilton provides good work opportunities. Overall, 42% strongly agreed/agreed while 46% disagreed/strongly disagreed and 12% are unsure. Just over half of millennials in secure employment strongly agreed/agreed compared to one in three of those in precarious work. Conversely, where one-third of millennials in secure employment disagreed/strongly disagreed that Hamilton provides good work opportunities, more than half (56%) of those in precarious work strongly disagreed/disagreed. Almost six in 10 survey respondents strongly disagreed/disagreed or were unsure of whether Hamilton provides good work opportunities. This may suggest that while millennials are committed to Hamilton and feel they belong, without better, more longer-term employment opportunities, they may be forced to move.
Networking opportunities
As Figure 9 illustrates, just over half of the millennials (51%) strongly agreed/agreed that Hamilton provides good networking opportunities. Millennials in precarious work were more likely to strongly disagree/disagree that Hamilton provides good opportunities (56%) compared to those in secure employment (34%). The fact that half of survey respondents could not agree that Hamilton provides good career opportunities may reflect their inability yet to connect to a career and stable employment.
Quality of life — I expect to have a quality of life the same or greater than my parents’ generation.
Expect the same of better quality of life as/than parents
Figure 11: Hamilton millennials overall
Figure 12: Hamilton millennials by employment precarity (%)
As Figure 11 shows, millennials were almost split on their expected quality of life. While 54% of millennials said they expected a better or same quality of life as their parents, 39% did not, and just under one in 10 were unsure. Among millennials in secure employment, 71% strongly agreed/agreed compared to 41% of those in precarious employment, a meaningful finding. Agreement steadily declined as participants moved from secure work to precarious work. The survey results reflect similar findings in U.S. studies of millennials. The 2016 Pew Research-EIG study reported that 38% of American millennials believe their standard of living will better than their parents, 21% worse and 33% the same.
Life is like a game of “snakes and ladders.” Opportunities come along that move you ahead in the game, but then you can face barriers that cause you to fall back. Do you think “THE GAME” is getting easier or harder for your generation of workers?
Is the game getting easier or harder for your generation?
Figure 13: Hamilton millennials overall
Figure 14: Hamilton millennials by employment precarity (%)
Almost nine in 10 millennials (85%) said “the game” was getting much/somewhat harder, compared to 4% who said it was somewhat easier, just under 9% who said about the same, and 3% who were unsure. An overwhelming majority of millennials in every employment-type category – secure, stable, vulnerable and precarious – agreed that the game is getting harder. Eighty-nine percent of those in precarious employment agreed the game is getting harder compared to 88% in vulnerable employment, 80% in stable employment and 79% of those in secure employment. And despite a somewhat optimistic outlook on their expected quality of life, millennials also believe they have far more challenges and hardship in getting there than previous generations.
Community of Foundations of Canada has stated, “Belonging is at the heart of building stronger communities and a more cohesive, inclusive country. It is about how much we believe we fit in a group or place, and is also fundamental to our sense of happiness and well-being.”
Inclusiveness in the workplace, whatever it may be, is also fundamental to our sense of happiness and wellbeing, and belonging. The Hamilton Millennial Survey, the PEPSO studies and other research have shown us that precarious employment and income uncertainty can have a negative effect on a person’s ability and reason for participating in and feeling part of their community.
Read more about how Hamilton Community Foundation works to help make Hamilton an inclusive place for everyone in our latest annual report.
Donations to the Foundation are invested for the long term in public markets and in alternative investments. Investment income is then allocated annually to support granting, community leadership and operations. The summary and charts presented here provide both a financial snapshot and a history of recent activity that underlies the grants and community leadership activities represented in this annual report, made possible by remarkable donors.
Donations to the Foundation are from individuals, corporations and other charities. Donors may contribute to named endowment or flowthrough funds, to the Board-directed Community Fund, or to HCF’s community leadership projects.
The $35.1 million in donations this year is the second highest total in HCF’s history. Annual donations are influenced by the timing of the realization of donations in wills and significant one-time donations like the $27.7 million in donations of property and private equity. As illustrated in Chart 1, annual donations have ranged between $3.2 and $35.1 million over the past eight years. The five-year rolling average of donations ranges from $5.0 million to $13.3 million over the past eight years.
The five-year rolling average number of donations is 1,787 with 2019-20 at 1,853. The number of donations fluctuates based on “in memoriam” donations and the number and nature of events sponsored by donors to raise money for their funds.
Chart 1
Grants are made annually from both endowed and flowthrough funds. Because flowthrough fund balances are distributed in a shorter time period, granting from these funds can materially influence HCF’s total annual amount granted.
As illustrated in Chart 2, grants and community leadership project spending over the past eight years has ranged from $4.7 million to this year’s historic high of $11.5 million. Granting from endowment funds was reduced in 2013 as a result of the decline in investment returns in 2012 which a) lowered the asset base used for the granting calculation (currently four percent of the fund balances), and b) resulted in less income available to grant. Flowthrough granting and expenditures on community leadership projects has ranged from 22 to 56 percent of total granting in any given year and is dependent on the timing and nature of flowthrough and project activity. At 893, the number of grants for this year is 37 percent higher than the eight-year average.
Chart 2
Investments traded in active markets are reported at fair market value. Investments not actively traded are recorded at their cost less any impairment of their value.
To support our strategy of aligning our assets with our mission and to provide a more diverse and robust portfolio, HCF has committed to investing in alternative asset classes including loans to charities and not-for-profits, private debt, real estate, infrastructure and private equity. These alternatives are consistent with the Foundation’s long-term investment horizon and liquidity requirements. Since these investments are not actively traded, they are valued at cost in the investments. These alternatives total $25.8 million.
HCF invests according to policy guidelines established by the Board of Directors. Two committees of the Board oversee investments to ensure compliance with the policy:
As an endowment builder, HCF’s policy focuses on long-term investing and is supported by reserve accounts that are currently at their policy maximum.
The investment policy sets out a total portfolio target asset mix, as well as a range around these targets. The public market investment managers have mandates within this targeted asset mix and use their discretion to invest the portfolios within this range. Chart 3 reflects the current and target asset mix. Note: $25 million of private equity relates to a fund established by a donor and is not part of the asset mix or the consolidated portfolio results.
Chart 3
Two long-term portfolios are invested in the public markets with Jarislowsky Fraser, and Connor, Clark & Lunn. Chart 4 compares those portfolios against benchmarks as follows:
Benchmarks reflect the performance of each market index based on HCF’s specific target asset mix. Comparing actual results to the benchmark measures the value added by investment managers compared to the average market performance. HCF’s investment policy target is a long-term investment return in the 6.5 to 7.5 percent range.
Chart 4
The effect of the global pandemic has materially affected investment returns, resulting in a -8.4 percent public market return for the year. The seven-year annualized return at 6.8 percent is within the targeted investment policy range and is 1.2 percent higher than the 5.6 percent benchmark. As noted in the financial highlights, the current 10-year annualized return of 7.0 percent is in the target range and is higher than the benchmark by 1.2 percent.
Impact investments enable donations to endowed funds to drive positive change beyond granting, because they represent investments of capital that deliver financial returns coupled with positive social and/or environmental outcomes. In addition, these investments provide a pool uncorrelated to the public markets which, in turn, buffers the portfolio from the volatility currently experienced.
More than 15 percent of our long-term assets are in impact investments. Chart 5 illustrates HCF’s impact investing progress over the past five years, with $25 million currently placed or outstanding and another $15 million committed. This brings the total commitment to $40 million, up from $34 million last year. Impact investments cover areas including affordable housing, arts, environment and sustainable development.
Chart 5
Local loans since inception total $9.7 million with $7.1 million outstanding at year end. Chart 6 shows the impact areas our loans have supported. Since the loan program’s 2012 inception, $2.6 million in loan principal has been repaid and recycled as new loans. In addition, the interest from these loans supports HCF granting.
Chart 6
IRP is a Government of Canada program being delivered nationally by partners including Community Foundations of Canada. As the first phase in the government’s long-term investment in social finance, the IRP’s goal is to make social-purpose organizations “investment ready” so they can make a difference in new and innovative ways through their participation in the social finance market. HCF has partnered with community foundations in London and Niagara, and the McMaster Innovation Park to manage the program regionally on behalf of Community Foundations of Canada. The first request for proposals for funding in January created enormous interest nationally and garnered 65 submissions to our regional partnership. Approved funding is expected to be released in June 2020. As an additional benefit, the IRP brought a growing number of potential opportunities for local loans to HCF’s attention.
These investments include private equity, private debt and real estate investments. Many of these investments are long term in nature, are maintained at cost and do not have a regular income stream. As these investments are maintained at cost, their results include interest income and realized gains, but not unrealized gains. Results for these investments are closely monitored and are reported when realized. Chart 7 identifies the investment areas, with $18.0 million placed and a total commitment of $33 million across 21 investments.
Chart 7
Operating expenses for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020 total $2.5 million and were 2.5 percent higher than last year. Staffing costs related to the Foundation’s 22 employees represent 70 percent of HCF operating costs.
In addition to breaking out cost by type, operating costs are allocated to each of the Foundation’s operating areas: grants administration, community and philanthropic leadership, community relations and knowledge dissemination, development activities, and administration and governance. Examples of community and philanthropic leadership include convening around the city’s critical issues and fostering the growth of philanthropy by sharing staff time and knowledge to support other charities. Charts 8 and 9 illustrate these costs by operating area and by expense type.
Charts 8 and 9
The Foundation’s annual development expenses are not necessarily attributable to the donations received in that year. The nature of donations to the Foundation can result in costs preceding the receipt of the donation by several years (for example, donations through wills). As a result, consistent with the community foundation sector, operating costs are evaluated by a ratio of total operating expenses to average total assets. Ratios fall within a range depending on the size and stage of the community foundation’s development.
Management considers the ratio of 1.26 percent (1.25 percent in 2019), as illustrated in Chart 10, to be within an acceptable range for a foundation of HCF’s size, stage and level of community leadership, compared against benchmarks established in the community foundation sector. We continue to monitor both the actual results and the benchmarks on an ongoing basis.
Chart 10
Hamilton Community Foundation’s total assets of $201 million at March 31, 2020 include balances of HCF funds and funds held on behalf of others at $1.7 million.
Hamilton Community Foundation’s fund balances, illustrated in Chart 11, represent accumulated donations plus the net investment earnings on these donations, minus granting and operating costs. Funds include both endowed and flowthrough funds. Endowed funds are held permanently and grant from investment earnings. Flowthrough funds are fully distributed as grants over a pre-determined term.
Chart 11
The fund balances have grown 55 percent to $198 million at the year ended March 31, 2020 from $128 million in 2013. Donations of $35.1 million included $4.4 million in flowthrough donations that were largely distributed as grants in the year and, as a result, do not remain in the fund balances at year end. This results in a modest total funds balance growth of 4.8 per cent for the year. The number of funds has grown 19 percent to 377 from 318 in 2013.
Donate Today