|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The overwhelming majority of Americans are members of working families. Seventy-seven percent of adults aged sixteen to sixty-four, including 84 percent of men and 71 percent of women, either worked for pay or were seeking work in 2000. [44] As a result, the majority of American children are raised in families in which all parents work for pay. [45] In addition, most elderly, sick, and disabled Americans must depend on working family members for the routine care and support they need.Our research has explored the prevalence of caregiving burdens for employees and the supports available to them to meet these demands. We examined differences in these caregiving demands and how workplace supports varied across socioeconomic class and gender. Furthermore, we explored the effects that workplace policies had on employed parents’ ability to care for their families’ health and educational needs. Data source: The Survey of Midlife in the With our colleagues at the MacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Midlife Development, we developed survey instruments addressing work and caregiving, including sections in the Survey of Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) and in the Daily Diaries Survey (discussed shortly). The members of the MacArthur Foundation Network on Successful Midlife Development consisting of researchers from across the United States and Europe, conducted the MIDUS survey which involved a nationally representative sample of over 3,500 adults aged twenty-five to seventy-four and 1,100 employed adults caring for children, parents, or parents-in-law. The survey included both a telephone interview and a lengthy written questionnaire. The product of this MIDUS survey was a collection of information on working conditions, work-family interactions, relationships with co-workers and supervisors, and workplace and outside support. See Table 7 for a description of the survey sample we analyzed.
Measures analyzed We examined the attitudes of supervisors and co-workers which can dramatically influence whether employees can take advantage of available paid leave and flexibility to meet family members’ needs. In addition, we examined the support that family, friends, and neighbors offer employees who need to fulfill caretaking responsibilities. Data were collected in MIDUS on the extent to which working adults could rely on family, friends, and neighbors for help. MIDUS also helped us to explore the degree of job autonomy each respondent had. The respondents were asked how often they could decide how to accomplish their tasks at work, determine what tasks to do, plan their work environment, and make decisions about work in general. Data source: National Study of Daily
Experiences The National Study of Daily Experiences (NSDE)
was developed to measure the extent of the national caregiving
burden. Together with David Almeida of the
Measures analyzed The high quality of the information we obtained
owes its greatest debt to the study participants and its second greatest debt
to the interviewers. Respondents were asked whether they had cutback on any
of their normal activities during the previous twenty-four hours because a
family member needed their help. For those respondents who answered
yes, follow-up questions were asked to explore what happened and how much it
interfered with their usual activities. Open-ended information for each
reported cutback was tape recorded and then transcribed. The information was then classified according
to whom the cutback was taken for and the reason it was taken. Coded
reasons for taking cutbacks included health needs, school needs, child care,
elder care, transportation, instrumental support, emotional support, other
support, and situations related to divorce or death. Respondents could
specify more than one reason. Regarding the person or people for whom a
respondent had taken a cutback, the coded categories included own children
(either biological, step, or adopted children), grandchildren or
great-grandchildren, other children such as nieces or nephews, parents,
spouse or partner, other adults, and multiple generations of
individuals. Sufficient data were available to provide detailed coding
for 93 percent of responses regarding whom the cutback was taken for and 88
percent of responses for the reason for cutbacks. Inter-rater
reliability in coding was 99 percent. We examined the demographic characteristics of who is taking cutbacks; the extent to which cutbacks are being taken for children, spouses and partners, elderly parents or other family members; and the degree to which family cutbacks are related to health, child care, elder care or other problems. In order to generate a meaningful and understandable measure of caregiving burden, we analyzed only those cutbacks reported in the first 7 interviews, or one week’s time, as opposed to using an 8-day time frame. See table 8 for a description of the survey samples we analyzed.
Data source: National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(NLSY) is sponsored by the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics and is conducted in collaboration with the Center for Human
Resource Research at Measures analyzed Our analyses included an examination of the resources that are available to families in the form of parental work schedules, parental work hours, and the availability of paid leave and job flexibility. Too frequently, surveys examine what benefits companies offer without asking what benefits families actually receive. While these may appear to be the same thing, many companies offer benefits to only some of their employees - for example, to those who have worked for a certain length of time, those who are not temporary or part-time workers, or those who have a minimum job grade. Thus, company managers might say they offer paid leave, but a significant number of their employees might not be receiving that leave. We examined what resources are available to working Americans across social classes. Many previous studies of working families have interviewed primarily or disproportionately middle-income families. Because of its nationally representative sample and because for many years it contained an over-sampling of poor families, the NLSY provides detailed data on the working conditions faced by low- income working families. We also conducted a detailed examination of the working conditions faced by high-need and resource-poor families. Parents who have a child with a chronic health problem, a learning disability, or a behavioral or emotional problem face greater time demands. The NLSY has conducted detailed developmental and educational examinations of children, and has collected information on their health, behavioral, developmental, and educational problems. Please see Table 9 contains for a description of this sample.
[44] [45] [46] Center for Human Resource Research. 2000. NLS Handbook
2000. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page is maintained by The Project on Global Working Families. Copyright 2002 by the
President and Fellows of |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
