#11 of 12
Proven Benefits of Inclusivity
Inclusivity of caregivers is not just an appeal more charity.
Inclusivity of caregivers is good for business. In fact, it is good for everyone.
Improved Outcomes for Care Recipients
The correlation between caregiver health and care recipient health is well documented. A decline in caregiver’s health can result in the institutionalization of the care recipient. Conversely, supports for employed caregivers lead to better cost-effective outcomes for those who need caretaking. Creating a more inclusive workplace for caregivers will improve the well-being for the disabled, sick, injured, and aging.
Improved Outcomes for Employed Caregivers
A workplace designed on the needs of today's society, and not on the outdated construct of the ideal worker, will allow employed caregivers to better manage their dual roles of work and caregiving. It will reduce discrimination and improve the physical health, mental health, financial health, social health, career success, and time management for individuals who must carry both employment and caregiving responsibilities.
“When employees work in workplaces that understand their family responsibilities, they tend to regard their workplace as resources rather than as work-related demands.” (8)
Additionally, when employed caregivers have supportive supervisors, the likelihood of wage loss from their caregiving status decreases by an incredible 37%.
Improved Outcomes for All Employees
It is important to note that inclusive policies will have additional positive effects for all employees, not just caregivers. Studies have shown that the ideal worker standard with its demands for structured, in-person work hours negatively impacts all staff; this is not a benefit that only affects caregiver outcomes in the workplace. One study noted that flexibility provides employees with a better sense of schedule control, increased management of their personal responsibilities, and a stronger feeling of working at a place where an employer cares for their staff.
Another study showed that when employees observe caregiving discrimination against their peers, that they report reduced job satisfaction. Additionally, employers might experience higher turnover or reduced engagement with their ideal workers when there is a culture of inflexibility and discrimination.
“We find that perceptions of high levels of workplace flexibility bias is associated with worse job satisfaction and engagement, and increased turnover intentions and job-to-home and home-to-job spillover, and that the effects of perceived flexibility bias on these outcomes occur even for ideal workers.” (9)
Improved Outcomes for Employers
While work can play a positive role for employees, offering inclusive policies is also beneficial for the employer. Generally speaking, it is not the employer’s core responsibility to provide social services and mental supports to their staff, as they must pay attention to the bottom line. However, there are many business reasons to create a workplace that allows non-traditional employees to succeed.
For example, employers of today are struggling to attract qualified candidates, and flex time and remote work are seen as optimal factors that will draw in additional talent. Conversely, during the current age of high turnover, employed caregivers under inclusive policies are more likely to stay in their current jobs. Employers cannot afford to lose the skill, experience, and productivity of their workforce, including the employed caregiver group.
Increased retention saves costs on employment gaps, hiring, training, and onboarding learning curves. Additionally, “caregiving programs are one of the few employer-sponsored benefits that both address social determinants of health and promote DEI” (12), both which are important qualities to retention and attraction of top talent.
“Most working people will tend to a family member’s health at some point during their careers. If HR and supervisors aren’t careful about how they manage those employees, the result can be costly litigation, low morale and bad press, among other problems.” (17)
Investing in flexible opportunities is good for the employer’s bottom line. In one study, for every dollar invested in flextime, an employer received $1.70 to $4.34 in return, and for every dollar invested in remote opportunities, an employer received $2.46 to $4.45 in return. "We are no longer living in a society where we view work and home as two separate spheres. Organizations of the future must adopt a whole person approach to supporting employees, which includes supporting caregivers in the important role of caring for their loved ones. (13)
Improved Outcomes for the Nation
Finally, increasing the inclusivity of employed caregivers in the workplace is beneficial to the nation. Many caregivers have had to leave the workforce in the past due to the incongruent nature of a rigid work schedule and caregiving responsibilities. It has been found that 23.7% of parents with special needs children reported work loss because of their caregiving role. Another study found that 33% of surveyed caregivers in their sample had to leave the workforce or reduce their hours.
Remote work, flexible time, the elimination of the caregiver bias, among other policies, can help re-incorporate a portion of these capable adults who would prefer to return, as making the workplace more inclusive will enable employed caregivers the ability to manage the role conflict. This population has largely been excluded from the workplace because of the rigid, biased, and often impossible standards of the ideal worker. Redefining what it means to be successful at work and re-imaging work as an inclusive place will be transformational for millions.
“A 2021 AARP analysis found that if employers and state governments bolster supports for working family caregivers age 50 and older, not only would worker productivity increase, but the U.S. gross domestic product could grow by as much as $1.7 trillion by 2030.” (10)
Resources for Proven Benefits
1. Bell, J. F., Whitney, R. L., & Young, H. M. (2019). Family Caregiving in Serious Illness in the United States: Recommendations to Support an Invisible Workforce. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67, S451–S456. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15820 2. Deeken, J. F., Taylor, K. L., Mangan, P., Yabroff, K. R., & Ingham, J. M. (2003). Care for the caregivers: A review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26(4), 922–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-3924(03)00327-0 3. Earle, A., & Heymann, J. (2012). The cost of caregiving: Wage loss among caregivers of elderly and disabled adults and children with special needs. Community, Work & Family, 15(3), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2012.674408 4. Greenfield, J. C., Hasche, L., Bell, L. M., & Johnson, H. (2018). Exploring how workplace and social policies relate to caregivers’ financial strain. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 61(8), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1487895 5. Hackett, K. (2020). When caring never stops. Nursing Standard, 35(2), 19–21. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.35.2.19.s12 6. Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Eberly, M. B., Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2008). Retaining talent : Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231-274. 7. Lerner, D. , Lavelle, T. , Adler, D. , Chow, W. , Chang, H. , Godar, S. & Rogers, W. (2020). A Population-Based Survey of the Workplace Costs for Caregivers of Persons With Treatment-Resistant Depression Compared With Other Health Conditions. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62 (9), 746-756. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001957 8. Li, L., & Lee, Y. (2020). Employment adjustment and mental health of employed family caregivers in Canada. Aging & Mental Health, 24(12), 2073–2081. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1647136 9. O’Connor, L. T., & Cech, E. A. (2018). Not Just a Mothers’ Problem: The Consequences of Perceived Workplace Flexibility Bias for All Workers. Sociological Perspectives, 61(5), 808–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418768235 10. Roman, C., Bane, S., & Opthof, E. (2021). How Employers and States Can Support the Essential Workforce of Family Caregivers. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(7), 1045–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211030142g 11. Schulz, R., and Beach, S. 1999. “Caregiving as a Risk Factor for Mortality. The Caregiver Health Effects Study.” JAMA 282(23): 2215–9. 12. Sowa, M., & McCann, R. (2021). No Budget for Caregiver Support? Employers Can Consider Linkages With DEI and Mental Health to Retain Talent. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(7), 1029–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171211030142b 13. Templeman, M. E., Badana, A. N. S., & Haley, W. E. (2020). The Relationship of Caregiving to Work Conflict and Supervisor Disclosure With Emotional, Physical, and Financial Strain in Employed Family Caregivers. Journal of Aging and Health, 32(7–8), 698–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264319848579 14. Tugend, A. (2021). Welcome to the Post-Pandemic Workplace. Kiplinger’s Retirement Report, 28(12), 20–21. 15. Weldon-Johns, M. (2015). From modern workplaces to modern families – re-envisioning the work–family conflict. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 37(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2015.1121964 16. Williams, J. C. (2006). One sick child away from being fired: When 'opting out' is not an option. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2126303 17. Zeidner, R. (2018). FAMILY TIME: Caregiver discrimination cases are on the rise--and the odds aren’t in employers’ favor. HR Magazine, 63(6), 46–52.