1. The Effects of Informal Care on Paid-work Participation in Great Britain Ursula Henz Presentation at the BSPS 2004 conference, University of Leicester, September 13-15

2. Research Question Previous studies (GB cross-sectional studies): Carers have lower incomes then non-carers Carers are less likely to be employed than non- carers, and if they are employed they are more likely to be in part-time jobs Overall questions: Does the employment status or the type of occupation matter for who takes up caring? Do carers change their involvement in paid work?

3. Previous Longitudinal Studies –Employed and not-employed women are equally likely to become caregivers (Moen,Robison & Fields 1994; Pavalko & Artis 1997) –Caregiving does not interrupt women’s labour force participation (MR&F) –Caregivers reduce their hours of work (P&A) –Women in paid work have lower likelihood to become carers, irrespective of hours of work; no reduction of hours worked (Dautzenberg et al. 2000) –Work-related factors do not matter for starting caregiving in general but for intensive caregiving (Spieß & Schneider 2002) US NL EU

4. More Specific Research Question: What job characteristics increase / lower the effects of caregiving on employment? Previous studies: Studies recommending more opportunities for part- time work for carers (e.g. Askham et al. 1992) or more flexibility ‘on all sides’ (e.g. Joshi 1995). Job-flexibility lowers the negative effects of caring; no effect of hours worked (US; Scharlach et al. 1991)

5. Theoretical Framework Three processes: caregiving, paid work, other family obligations –Competing demands on individual’s time & energy Decisions related to informal care depend on –Individual resources and constraints associated with carer’s life stage –Sense of moral obligation to help; actual amount of caring depends on particular circumstances

6. Key Aspects of Decisions about Informal Care Caregiver social resources –spouse, adult children –wider support network other commitments –children, spouse financial situation –household income –purchase care Care Recipient relationship with carer level of impairment geographical distance Paid Work working hours flexibility of schedule income pension

7. The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC) NS-SEC five-class version: 1.Managerial and professional occupations 2.Intermediate occupations 3.Small employers and own account workers 4.Lower supervisory and technical occupations 5.Semi-routine and routine occupations Relevant for effects of caring: Income to finance care / opportunity costs Career structure Flexible working hours, opportunity for part-time work

8. Family and Working Lives Survey, 1994-1995 Main sample of 9139 respondents, –1395 informal carers (male and female)informal carers Representative of 16-69yrs GB Advantages –Retrospective caring histories –Retrospective employment histories –Further retrospective data Also –Perceived effects of caring on work arrangements

9. Hazard Rate of 1 st Lifetime Caring By Gender

10. Reported Effects of Start of First Lifetime Caring (Per cent)

11. Reported Effects of the End of the First Caring Episode (Per cent)

12. Illustration of Multivariate Analysis Reported effect of start of 1 st caring 1 st caring episode job history caring history partnership history child history X X X

13. Odds-ratios from Logit Models for Effects of Start of 1 st Caring Other covariates in models: Age, Having a partner, Child configuration.

14. Odds-ratios from Logit Models for Effects of Start of 1 st Caring Other covariates in models: Age, Having a partner, Child configuration.

15. Conclusions Reducing number of hours worked –weak association with class –more common among part-time workers than full-time workers (women) –lack of opportunity for ft workers to reduce hours of paid work? Semi-routine and routine workers –strongest effects of caring, most likely to stop working –lack of work flexibility, or low opportunity costs