Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging

Living Edition
| Editors: Danan Gu, Matthew E. Dupre

Employment and Caregiving

  • Yeonjung LeeEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_15-1



Employed family caregivers face difficult choices as they try to balance work and caregiving commitments. A large number of family caregivers to older adults are employed or working part time in addition to their caregiving responsibilities. In Canada, approximately 72% of women and 83% of men caregivers are employed (Lilly 2011). Role responsibilities divided between caregiving and working frequently compete and conflict; employed caregivers are described as feeling “sandwiched” (Neal and Hammer 2007) as they struggle with balancing and combining both responsibilities (Wang et al. 2018). Consequently, some working caregivers are likely to make adjustments in their work and caregiving activities (Scharlach et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2015a; Lee and Tang 2015). It is estimated that about 25% of working caregivers in Canada made work-related adjustments in order to take on caregiving responsibilities (Duxbury et al. 2009; Fast 2015). However, working can also provide the advantage of taking a respite from caregiving for some caregivers (Hansen and Slagsvold 2015).

Key Research Findings

In research on caregiving and employment, many studies have examined the relationship independently, assuming a unidirectional relationship (Pavalko and Henderson 2006; Young and Grundy 2008; Lee and Tang 2015). That is, they distinguish caregiving interference with work from work interference with caregiving, and address each model separately, with more attention directed to the impact of caregiving on work.

Several studies (Pavalko and Woodbury 2000; Dentinger and Clarkberg 2002) have shown that caregivers are likely to work. As family caregiving often causes a financial burden, caregivers may want to remain employed due to financial considerations or health insurance (Carmichael and Charles 2003; Dentinger and Clarkberg 2002; Eales et al. 2015). In addition, some caregivers consider their workplace a respite from the demands of caregiving (Carmichael and Charles 2003; Hansen and Slagsvold 2015). From this perspective, employed caregivers consider their employment as a means of buffering the strain and stress of caregiving demands, (Pavalko and Woodbury 2000). However, a large body of literature has also documented that caregiving is negatively related to employment, showing that many caregivers left the labor force or retired or shifted from full-time to part-time employment as a result of providing care to parents (Pavalko and Henderson 2006; Spiess and Schneider 2003; Longacre et al. 2016).

Compared to the literature on the effects of caregiving on work, relatively fewer studies have examined how caregivers’ employment is associated with the decision to take on caregiving responsibilities. Some research has suggested that employment limits the likelihood and amount of time that family members provide care (Scharlach et al. 2007; Young and Grundy 2008; Feinberg et al. 2011), though women are likely to become caregivers regardless of their employment status unlike men. This suggests that employment was not significantly associated with stopping caregiving for women (Moen et al. 1994). However, the cross-sectional designs of these studies limit the ability to infer causality. Mentzakis et al. (2009) examine the determinants of informal care using a longitudinal data and show that participation in the labor force negatively affects the decision to be a caregiver for men and women.

A few studies have examined the reciprocal relationship between employment and caregiving (Berecki-Gisolf et al. 2008; Pavalko and Artis 1997; Lee et al. 2015a). Boaz and Muller (1992) are among the first researchers to suggest the potential for the simultaneity of both relationships based on cross-sectional design. By distinguishing full-time and part-time employment, their findings show that full-time employment of caregivers reduces the hours of caregiving and women caregivers are much less likely than their male counterparts to have full-time employment. However, there is no significant effect for part-time employment. More recently, Lee et al. (2015a) test the association using longitudinal panel data and show no reciprocal relationship between caregiving and labor force participation. Instead, the findings show that there is negative effect of caregiving on employment for women, whereas employment reduces the possibility of being a caregiver for men.

Areas for future research include more diverse approaches to address employment and caregiving. Rather than focusing on employment status itself and distinguishing those who are employed and those who are not, the experiences and perceptions of employment need to be examined. Caregiving should be measured the same way. Instead of simply indicating whether a person is providing care or not, how caregivers perceive their care experiences might help an understanding of not only the negative outcomes but also the positive perspectives of caregiving. These perspectives have been raised previously by pointing out the lack of insight into the relationship between caregiving and employment and applied mostly to examine caregiver outcomes such as caregiver burden, well-being, and self-esteem (Reid et al. 2010). For example, Reid and colleagues (2010) examine the effects of employment status and work interferences on caregiver well-being, respectively, and suggest that subjective assessment of work interferences may play a more important role than does employment status.

Implications for Policy and Practice

These empirical findings regarding the association between caregiving and employment have implications for policy and practice. In the long term, the substantial earnings loss for caregivers raises questions about their retirement income because caregivers accumulate fewer future pension benefits (Lee et al. 2015b). Therefore, efforts to address poverty issues among caregivers, such as providing family caregiver credits, may improve their pension entitlements and add value to their caregiving work. Also, providing direct cash transfers or offering tax credits for purchasing long-term care insurance may compensate caregivers for their financial loss (Mellor 2000).

The workplace is a primary arena for supporting working caregivers to manage care and work responsibilities (Neal and Hammer 2007; Ireson et al. 2018). Workplace supports including flexible work schedules, paid leave, or supportive supervisors, and co-workers positively influence family caregivers’ employment outcomes by reducing stress and role strain and helping them to meet their caregiving responsibilities (Kossek et al. 2001; Feinberg 2018). On the other hand, limited job flexibility and fewer workplace supports are likely to increase lateness for work and absenteeism, thus decreasing the productivity of employed caregivers (Scharlach 1994; Dembe et al. 2011) as well as their mental health outcomes (Li and Lee under review).

Paid family leave and supportive social services are important to assist family caregivers in the labor force and improve caregiving outcomes. Increased availability of publicly supported home care systems and caregiving leave can both increase flexibility in the workplace and increase the possibility for caregivers to remain in the labor force (Pavalko and Henderson 2006).


Given that many older adults are likely to live in the community, the number of family members and friends who provide care to these individual is and will be increasing. Research is needed to identify who are most vulnerable in the labor force and how the intersectionality of socioeconomic status affects employment as well as caregiving outcomes among caregivers.


  1. Berecki-Gisolf J, Lucke J, Hockey R et al (2008) Transitions into informal caregiving and out of paid employment of women in their 50s. Soc Sci Med 67:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boaz RF, Muller CF (1992) Paid work and unpaid help by caregivers of the disabled and frail elders. Med Care 30:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carmichael F, Charles S (2003) The opportunity costs of informal care: does gender matter? J Health Econ 22:781–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dembe AE, Partridge JS, Dugan E et al (2011) Employees’ satisfaction with employer-sponsored elder-care programs. Int J Work Health Manag 4:216–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dentinger E, Clarkberg M (2002) Informal caregiving and retirement timing among men and women: gender and caregiving relationships in late midlife. J Fam Issues 23:857–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duxbury LE, Schroeder B, Higgins CA (2009) Balancing paid work and caregiving responsibilities: a closer look at family caregivers in Canada. Can Policy Res Netw Ott, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  7. Eales J, Keating N, Donalds S et al (2015) Assessing the needs of employed caregivers and employers. University of Alberta, Research on Aging, Policies and Practice, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  8. Fast J (2015) Caregiving for older adults with disabilities. Available via Institute for Research on Public PolicyGoogle Scholar
  9. Feinberg LF (2018) Breaking new ground: supporting employed family caregivers with workplace leave policies. AARP Public Policy Inst 136:1–28Google Scholar
  10. Feinberg LF, Reinhard SC, Houser A et al (2011) Valuing the invaluable: 2011-the growing contributions and costs of family caregiving. http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/ltc/i51-caregiving.pdf. Accessed 27 Aug 2011
  11. Hansen T, Slagsvold B (2015) Feeling the squeeze? The effects of combining work and informal caregiving on psychological well-being. Eur J Ageing 12:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ireson R, Sethi B, Williams A (2018) Availability of caregiver-friendly workplace policies (CFWP s): an international scoping review. Health Soc Care Community 26:e1–e14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kossek EE, Colquitt JA, Noe RA (2001) Caregiving decisions, well-being and performance: the effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates. Acad Manag J 44:29–44Google Scholar
  14. Lee Y, Tang F (2015) More caregiving, less working: caregivers roles and gender differences. J Appl Gerontol 34:465–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee Y, Tang F, Kim KH et al (2015a) Exploring gender differences in the relationships between eldercare and labour force participation. Can J Aging/La Rev Can Vieillissement 34:14–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee Y, Tang F, Kim KH et al (2015b) The vicious cycle of parental caregiving and financial well-being: a longitudinal study of women. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 70:425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li L, Lee Y (under review) Employment adjustment and mental health of employed family caregivers in CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Lilly MB (2011) The hard work of balancing employment and caregiving: what can Canadian employers do to help? Healthc Policy 7:23Google Scholar
  19. Longacre ML, Valdmanis VG, Handorf EA et al (2016) Work impact and emotional stress among informal caregivers for older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 72:522–531Google Scholar
  20. Mellor JM (2000) Filling in the gaps in long term care insurance. In: Meyer MH (ed) Care work: gender, labor and the welfare state. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Mentzakis E, McNamee P, Ryan M (2009) Who cares and how much: exploring the determinants of co-residential informal care. Rev Econ Househ 7:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moen P, Robison J, Felds V (1994) Women’s work and caregiving role: a life course approach. J Gerontol: Soc Sci 49:S176–S186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neal MB, Hammer LB (2007) The sandwiched generation: introduction. In: Neal MB, Hammer LB (eds) Working couples caring for children and aging parents. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  24. Pavalko EK, Artis JE (1997) Women’s caregiving and paid work: causal relationships in late midlife. J Gerontol: Soc Sci 52B:S170–S179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavalko EK, Henderson KA (2006) Combining care work and paid work: do workplace policies make a difference? Res Aging 28:359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavalko EK, Woodbury S (2000) Social roles as process: caregiving careers and women’s health. J Health Soc Behav 41:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reid CR, Stajduhar KI, Chappell NL (2010) The impact of work interferences on family caregiver outcomes. J Appl Gerontol 29:267–289Google Scholar
  28. Scharlach AE (1994) Caregiving and employment: competing or complementary roles? Gerontologist 34:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scharlach AE, Gustavson K, Dal Santo TS (2007) Assistance received by employed caregivers and their care recipients: who helps care recipients when caregivers work full time? Gerontologist 47:752–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spiess CK, Schneider AU (2003) Interactions between care-giving and paid work hours among European midlife women, 1994 to 1996. Ageing Soc 23:41–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang YN, Hsu WC, Yang PS et al (2018) Caregiving demands, job demands, and health outcomes for employed family caregivers of older adults with dementia: structural equation modeling. Geriatr Nurs 39:676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Young H, Grundy E (2008) Longitudinal perspectives on caregiving, employment history and marital status in midlife in England and Wales. Health Soc Care Community 16:388–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Section editors and affiliations

  • Neena L. Chappell
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute on Aging and Lifelong Health, Department of SociologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada