Patterns of caregiving and work: evidence from two surveys

For older Americans and for Americans who are living with a chronic illness or a disability, informal caregiving can make an important difference between living independently at home and living in a nursing home. Often, informal care is provided by adults in midlife with many demands on their time.⁶ We use two datasets to examine the characteristics of informal caregivers who are in midlife. The American Time Use Survey (ATUS) contains information from individuals on their provision of eldercare.⁷ In contrast, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) collects information on care that individuals regularly provide to disabled and chronically ill household members regardless of the household members’ ages.⁸ The two data sources examine caregiving for different populations. As such, the patterns of caregiving by employment status and educational attainment vary across the two surveys. The ATUS shows that eldercare providers are more likely to be employed than nonproviders and the likelihood of providing eldercare increases with educational attainment. The NLSY79 shows that caregivers for household members who are disabled or chronically ill are less educated and less likely to be employed than noncaregivers. Women are more likely to provide each type of care.

Data

The paragraphs that follow describe the two datasets used in this article, the ATUS and the NLSY79, with emphasis on the differences between the data collected in each survey. Because the two datasets collect information about different types of caregiving, together they more clearly show the details of informal caregiving than either would separately.

American Time Use Survey

The ATUS is a continuous survey about how individuals spend their time, providing nationally representative estimates of how, where, and with whom Americans spend their time on an average day. The ATUS surveys individuals age 15 and older and provides statistics on various activities, such as paid work, childcare, volunteering, and socializing. Starting in 2011, the ATUS began collecting data on unpaid eldercare, for the full adult population. To enhance comparability with the NLSY79, we limit the ATUS data used in this article to respondents who were born from 1957 to 1964 and who completed the ATUS from 2011 to 2016. The respondents range in age from 47 to 60 during this timeframe. This sample includes 9,895 respondents who completed the survey once during the 6-year period.

The ATUS captures unpaid care that is provided to people age 65 and older who need help because of a condition related to aging.⁹ Eldercare can include many different caring activities, such as assisting with grooming and feeding, arranging for medical care, and providing transportation for individuals with a chronic illness or disability that worsens with age. Eldercare can also include activities such as helping a neighbor shovel snow, grocery shopping for an acquaintance, or providing companionship to an individual as he or she grows older, even if he or she does not have a chronic illness or disability. Eldercare can be associated with almost any activity, whether the recipient has a chronic illness or not.

The ATUS interview includes a time-diary section, during which survey respondents sequentially report activities they did between 4 a.m. on the day before the interview and 4 a.m. on the day of the interview. After the respondents complete the time diary, interviewers ask questions to identify eldercare providers, the characteristics of eldercare recipients, and any activities in the time diary that may have been done as eldercare.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979

The NLSY79 is a nationally representative sample of men and women who were born from 1957 to 1964 and living in the United States in 1978.¹⁰ The sample members were surveyed annually from 1979 to 1994 and biennially since. Questions about caregiving are asked of all respondents beginning in 2008. In each wave, NLSY79 respondents are asked about care that is regularly provided to those in the household who are ill or disabled. The NLSY79 does not restrict the care reported on the basis of the recipient’s age as does the ATUS, but it imposes the restrictions that the care be provided regularly and that the recipient be disabled or chronically ill. NLSY79 respondents who report providing care based on this definition are asked how many hours per week they spend giving care. The NLSY79 sample used for this study is composed of the 6,368 sample members who were interviewed in all three of the 2012, 2014, and 2016 interview waves.¹¹

Patterns of caregiving

The following tables and chart use ATUS or NLSY79 data to provide information about the frequency and intensity of caregiving during midlife of individuals in the United States, as well as the relationship between caregiving and employment.

American Time Use Survey

Table 1 shows how the percentage of the population born from 1957 to 1964 who provided eldercare varies by sex and by selected characteristics, averaged across the years 2011 to 2016. About 24 percent of those born from 1957 to 1964 provided eldercare, with men providing eldercare at a lower rate compared with women (22 percent versus 27 percent). Among both men and women, Whites were more likely to provide eldercare than Blacks and Hispanics. The likelihood of providing eldercare increased with education, with 11 percent of those with less than a high school diploma and almost 30 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree providing eldercare. This pattern holds for both men and women. Furthermore, the percentage at each level of education tracks closely for men and women, except for “some college or associate’s degree,” in which 21 percent of men as opposed to 29 percent of women care for elderly people.

Those who were not employed were less likely to have provided eldercare than those who were employed—21 percent versus 26 percent. Among employed men, the likelihood of providing eldercare was not statistically different for full- and part-time workers (24 percent and 20 percent, respectively). Among women who were employed, the likelihood of providing eldercare did not vary by part-time and full-time status (28 percent).

Table 2 describes the characteristics of eldercare providers and of the care provided. About 80 percent of eldercare providers were not parents of a child in the household. In addition, 70 percent of eldercare providers cared for one person, 23 percent for two people, and 7 percent for three or more people. Eldercare providers were mostly caring for their parents (68 percent), with the percentage of those caring for a parent higher among women than men (71 percent versus 65 percent). More than half of the eldercare providers cared for someone who was age 80 or older, that is, 20 to 30 years older than they were. Most eldercare providers—87 percent—cared only for someone who lived outside of their household. About 13 percent of caregivers (or 3 percent of the population) cared for someone within the provider’s household.

Among eldercare providers, the usual frequency with which they provided care varied substantially. Respondents were asked how often they provided care in the past 3 to 4 months; this information was used to categorize them by frequency of care. About 20 percent of eldercare providers indicated daily care, another 25 percent gave care several times a week, and 17 percent estimated once a week. Nearly 21 percent provided eldercare several times a month, and 17 percent provided care once a month or at some other frequency. In addition, many provided care over a long time, with half of the caregivers providing care for 3 years or longer.

Table 3 provides more detail on the amount of eldercare provided by this cohort (those born from 1957 to 1964) on an average day and an average week. On an average day, eldercare providers spent about 43 minutes providing care. Over an average week, this comes to about 5 hours of eldercare. On an average day, female eldercare providers were about 25 percent more likely to provide eldercare and spent more time in this care than male eldercare providers (52 minutes versus 31 minutes). Black eldercare providers were more likely to provide care on an average day (32 percent) and provided more care (an average of 74 minutes) compared with their White counterparts. Among White eldercare providers, 24 percent engaged in this care on an average day and provided care for about 40 minutes.

The likelihood and amount of care provided on an average day varied with employment status. Eldercare providers who were not employed were 13 percentage points more likely to provide care on an average day and spent nearly 2.5 times as much time providing care compared with eldercare providers who were employed. Care providers who were employed part time were about equally likely to provide care on an average weekend day, compared with providers who were employed full time (25 percent and 24 percent). The amount of time provided in eldercare in an average week did not differ by part- versus full-time employment status, but both fell below the amount of care provided by eldercare providers who were not employed.

Some aspects of household composition were related to the likelihood of providing eldercare and to the amount of care provided on an average day. Eldercare providers who were married or living with a partner were 15 percentage points less likely to provide care on an average day and provided about 2 fewer hours of care per week than eldercare providers living without a spouse or partner in their household. Among eldercare providers, parents with children under 18 were about as likely to provide eldercare and spent a similar amount of time providing care on an average day, compared with those who were not parents.

Not surprisingly, the probability of care and the average amount of eldercare provided on a given day increased with the usual frequency of care reported. About two-thirds of those who reported providing care ”daily” provided care on an average day. This group provided about 15 hours of care in an average week. By contrast, 4 percent of those who reported providing care once a month provided care on an average day and spent less than 1 hour of care in an average week.

The chart shows that eldercare provision is related to employment. Caregivers were more likely to be employed and to be employed full time compared with noncaregivers. However, employment patterns were different, depending on whether the provider lived in the same household as the recipient. Of eldercare providers who did not live with the recipient, 82 percent were employed and 70 percent employed full time. By contrast, among eldercare providers who resided with the recipient, 67 percent were employed and 59 percent were employed full time. The differences in the employment rates between those who do and do not live with the recipient are sizeable, so much so that eldercare providers who lived with the care recipient were less likely to work than nonproviders were.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979

Based on data from the 2012, 2014, and 2016 NLSY79 interviews, in about 7 percent of the person-years, members of the NLSY79 cohort are serving as caregivers to members of their households who are disabled or chronically ill.¹² (See table 4.) The rates of caregiving vary substantially by the characteristics of the individuals. Among Blacks and Hispanics, the rate of caregiving is higher, at 9 percent. The nonemployed are caregivers in 13 percent of the years, while the employed are less likely to provide care and are doing so in 6 percent of years. Among the individuals who are employed, rates of caregiving further differ with the hours of work; part-time workers and full-time workers provide care in about 9 percent and 5 percent of the years.

In addition, the prevalence of caregiving for household members who are disabled or chronically ill declines by education. Those without a high school diploma provided care 13 percent of the years, compared with those with a bachelor’s degree who provided care only 4 percent of the years. The incidence of caregiving also differs depending on whether the individual is married. Those who are not married but have a partner present in the household are more likely to provide care, compared with those who are married and have a spouse in the household (14 percent versus 8 percent). Individuals who are unmarried and have no partner in the household are the least likely to provide care (5 percent).

In general, the variation in the rates of caregiving by the individual characteristics just discussed hold for both men and women, with rates higher among women. For example, married women, women with partners in their household, and women without a partner living in their household care for household members in 9 percent, 16 percent, and 7 percent of the years, respectively. Conversely, men with these marital statuses care for household members in 7 percent, 13 percent, and 4 percent of the years.

Table 5 shows how household composition differs between caregivers and noncaregivers. Some of these differences stem directly from the definition of caregiving used for the NLSY79. Because the definition of caregiving examined here stipulates regular care for household members who are disabled or chronically ill, none of the caregivers lives alone. In contrast, about 20 percent of noncaregivers live alone. Moreover, caregivers live in larger households than the noncaregivers. About 31 percent of caregivers live in households made up of four or more people versus 22 percent of noncaregivers. Caregivers are 5 times as likely to live with their mothers compared with noncaregivers (16 percent versus 3 percent). Caregivers are also more likely to have a partner to whom they are not married as part of their household (11 percent versus 5 percent).

Again, by definition, all caregivers observed in the NLSY79 have at least one person in the household who is disabled or chronically ill, whereas 4 percent of the noncaregivers have a household member who meets these criteria. Among the noncaregivers who have a disabled or chronically ill household member, spouses make up the bulk of those who are disabled or chronically ill. In the households of caregivers, children and mothers make up sizeable proportions of those who are disabled or chronically ill (24 and 12 percent)—though spouses are still the largest group of disabled or chronically ill household members, at 45 percent.

In table 6, we see that the average amount of care reported is approximately 35 hours per week, with the amount of care varying substantially across caregivers. Caregivers in the bottom quartile provide 8 or fewer hours per week. Those at the 50th and the 75th percentiles of the distributions provide 20 and 40 hours of care per week. Notably, the highest 10 percent of the distribution are providing considerable amounts of care at 100 hours or more per week.

While, on average, female caregivers provide more care than their male counterparts, below the 75th percentiles, the distributions of caregiving for men and for women overlap substantially and diverge above that. Women in the top 10th percentile of hours of care, however, report caring almost constantly.

Variation in the intensity of caregiving by employment status and educational attainment mirrors the variation in the incidence of caregiving by these factors. Caregivers who are not employed spend more time caring for household members in need of care. On average, they provide 24 more hours of care per week than do caregivers who are employed. Furthermore, caregivers who work part time provide about 10 more hours than those who work full time. Hours of care decline as educational attainment rises. Caregivers with a bachelor’s degree or higher provided less care than caregivers with lower levels of education. This pattern is most evident among female caregivers. On average, those with less than a high school diploma provide about 50 percent more hours of care per week compared with those who had earned at least a bachelor’s degree (41 versus 24 hours per week). The amount of care provided increasingly diverges by education at higher percentiles in the caregiving distributions.

The long employment history available in the NLSY79 permits us to examine the relationship between employment over the life cycle of the NLSY79 birth cohort and their caregiving while they are in their 50s. Table 7 shows that caregivers worked approximately the same number of years during their 20s, 30s, and 40s as noncaregivers. However, caregivers worked at least 500 hours in a smaller number of years in each decade of their lives. Caregivers also worked fewer weeks during their 20s, 30s, and 40s relative to noncaregivers, but average hours worked during the weeks in which they did work are similar for caregivers and noncaregivers. Together these statistics indicate that caregivers are attached to the labor market through their prime years, but they work a lower proportion of the time than noncaregivers.

Conclusions

Taken together, the NLSY79 and ATUS show that among younger baby boomers, a sizable portion of men and women in their 50s provided care to a friend or family member. In the ATUS, almost 1 in 4 provided eldercare. In general, such caregiving seemed to constitute a low level of time, with caregivers spending 5 hours in an average week providing care. Eldercare providers who cared for someone living in their household or those who reported caring for someone daily provided high levels of care, amounting to 14 to 15 hours in an average week. In the NLSY79, more than 1 in 15 cared for a member of their household who is disabled or chronically ill. On average, these care providers reported spending 35 hours per week in care.

Because the ATUS and NLSY79 define care differently, it is not surprising that the patterns of caregiving from the two datasets vary. Except for women providing more eldercare and more care for a household member who is disabled or chronically ill, the relationships between labor market outcomes and the likelihood and intensity of each type of care contrast. The ATUS shows that the incidence of eldercare rises with education and that eldercare is most frequently provided to parents. Fifty-four percent of eldercare givers provided care weekly or less frequently, and about fifty percent had been providing care for 3 years or longer. Eldercare providers are more likely to be employed and to be employed full time than nonproviders. In the NLSY79, the provision of care to disabled or chronically ill household members is negatively related to employment and education. Although the patterns between care and employment differ for the ATUS eldercare measures versus the NLSY79 caregiving measures, for one group they are similar. Just as for caregivers in the NLSY79, ATUS eldercare providers who reside with the recipient of their care were less likely to be employed than nonproviders.