Reconciliation of work and family: children with disabilities Joris Ghysels Faculty of Political and Social Sciences Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck (CSB) University of Antwerp

1 Overview The data source: FFCS Panorama: the organisation of care for children in Flanders Side-kick: children living in deprived families Children with a handicap -Care -Brothers and sisters -Deprivation as a determinant of care Conclusion

2 The data source: FFCS Survey of nearly 3000 families during the school-year Families with youngest <16 (Pop.Register) -458 Families with a child with a handicap (Government Agency: Vlaams Agentschap voor Personen met een Handicap) -434 Deprived families (Government Agency: Kind en Gezin) Questions about parent(s) and children Time Use frames (parents & children) Questions asked to every parent in the household (not separated), not to children

3 The time-use of parents: the use of care facilities is not generalised For all Flemish families with children (0-15), the following picture emerges on a ‘normal working week’: 36%Formal care (crèche, child minder, at school,…) 17%Informal care (almost exclusively grandparents) 28%Do not need care, because (at least) one parent has no job 6% Do not need care, because children stay home alone 13% Do not use care facilities, because parents organise their working schedule in a way that avoids care use  47% of the families organises it by themselves in a regular week

4 The use of care facilities (youngest) With preschool children (minus 3): 32%Child minder 24% Nursery (crèche) 14% Grandparents 28% No care facilities used With school-age children (3 to 15): 13% Grandparents 12% School (pre- & afterschool care) 5% IBO (Initiatives for out-of-school care) 63% No care facilities used

5 Children living in a deprived family Detection by family nurses of ‘Kind and Gezin’ who visit all newborns at home. A number of criteria: parental employment and educational level, living situation, income, child’s health and social surrounding) About 6% of families with newborn in 2005

6 Care for children living in deprived families (1) Pre-school children: 11%Child minder(Fl: 32%) 10%Nursery (crèche) (Fl: 24%) 7%Grandparents (Fl: 14%) 71%No facilities used(Fl: 28%)  Only 29% of the pre-school children are in care on a regular basis.

7 Explanations? A large part of the children lives in a family without labour income (52% vs. 5% for children of the general sample) Grandparents are available to a lower extent (29% has grandparents with a high availability score versus vs. 58% for children of the general sample) Care for children living in deprived families (2)

8 Children with a handicap As registered by the Flemish government agency for care for the disabled Disabilities can be: -Physical -Mental -Socio-emotional (e.g. learning disorder, ADHD) The agency provides all kinds of services: -Residential -Semi-residential -Non-residential (at home, school, etc…)

9 A child with a handicap (1) The average amount of time spent by type of care (weekly total)

10 A child with a handicap (2) Most important forms of formal care: the school (24%) and IBO’s (5%) ! Care by the school: 68% special school en 32% regular schools (“inclusive education”) Limited users of formal care: use (semi-) residential care of the Flemish Agency Users of formal care: use non-residential facilities, are younger than 12 and have an employed mother

11 Siblings of a child with a handicap (3) Well-being of brothers and sisters of a child with a handicap (siblings) compared with average Flemish child SDQ (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; Goodman): total score of problematic behaviour siblingsFlemish kid SDQ problematic 7 % 3 % SDQ borderline 8 % 4 % SDQ normal 85 % 92 %

12 Siblings of a child with a handicap (4) Educational lag SiblingsAverage child Final year of nursery school 7% 3% Primary school22% 12% 1st till 3rd grade in secondary school 37% 17%

13 Family context of a child with a handicap (5) Sample of children with a handicap General sample Lone parent family1/4 1/6 Mother has lower educational level 1/3 1/5 Mother inactive1/21/12 Parent with a handicap or chronic disease 1/51/10

14 Patterns of care (6) 1.Semi-residential and residential care (collective care) with special school (45%): More problematic handicap Less household resilience 2.Non-residential care or no use of special facilities with regular school (with or without special efforts of the Agency) (26%): Less problematic handicap and stronger household 3.Non-residential care or no use of special facilities with special school (27%): More problematic handicap and inactive mother

15 Conclusion The care for children with a handicap relies strongly on the resilience of parents: -Informal care is harder to organise -Inclusive arrangements (staying close to ‘regular’ society) require important parental effort Yet, the household strength is not evenly distributed -Employment opportunities (education, divorce) -Disabilities among parents -Siblings with ‘special needs’ Therefore, policy needs to be family-oriented. Tackling the problems of the handicapped persons is not enough. The family context requires attention