Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:42:08.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relatives as paid care-givers: how family carers experience payments for care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2009

ELLEN GROOTEGOED ,
TRUDIE KNIJN  and
BARBARA DA ROIT
ELLEN GROOTEGOED
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
TRUDIE KNIJN*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BARBARA DA ROIT
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Trudie Knijn, Interdisciplinary Social Science, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Utrecht3584CS, The Netherlands E-mail: G.C.M.Knijn@uu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Payments for care, by which people in need of long-term care directly employ care workers, have been introduced in many European countries. In The Netherlands, care dependants are allowed to use these payments to hire relatives to perform care tasks. Care-givers who are employed by their relatives are in a hybrid position, because they are contracted as employees in the informal setting of a family home and its affective care relationships. This paper reports a qualitative study of relatives' experiences of payments for care and how these affect their care-giving. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 17 paid carers: they were asked to respond to three fictional vignettes of contrasting care trajectories. It was found that the cash nexus had mixed and partly contradictory implications for the paid care-givers. On the one hand, the care-givers were satisfied with the arrangement, as the payments recognised and raised their status as carers, and were seen as reward and reciprocation for their care work. Some carers had found that the contract helped manage strained relationships, by enabling a clearer differentiation of care tasks from affection. On the other hand, some who regarded themselves as employees and saw their role as equivalent to formal carers felt a greater obligation to provide high-quality care, and found that they were thanked less often and received fewer tokens of gratitude.

Keywords

payments for carefamily careintergenerational relationsThe Netherlands
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , April 2010 , pp. 467 - 489
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bengtson, V. L. 2001. Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational relationships in American society. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, A. E. and Matthias, R. E. 2004. Work-life differences and outcomes for agency and consumer-directed home-care workers. The Gerontologist, 44, 4, 479–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breda, J., Schoenmaekers, D., Landeghem, C. van, Claessems, D. and Geerts, J. 2006. When informal care becomes a paid job: the case of Personal Assistance Budgets in Flanders. In Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. A. (eds), Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Policy, Bristol, UK, 155–70.Google Scholar
Dale, S., Brown, R., Philips, B. and Carlson, B. L. 2005. How do hired workers fare under consumer-directed personal care? The Gerontologist, 45, 5, 583–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) 2007. PGB in perspectief [Personal Budgets in Perspective]. VWS, The Hague. Available online at www.minvws.nl/images/dlz-2811809a-_tcm19-155110.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2008].Google Scholar
Evers, A., Pijl, M. and Ungerson, C. (eds)1994. Payments for Care: A Comparative Overview. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
Finch, J. 1987. Research note: the vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 1, 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Folbre, N. 2006. Demanding quality: worker/consumer coalition and ‘high road’ strategies in the care sector. Politics and Society, 34, 1, 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, N. 2004. Transformation of the Welfare State: The Silent Surrender of Public Responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C. 2008. Increasing choice and control for older and disabled people: a critical review of new developments in England. Social Policy and Administration, 42, 5, 451–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groger, L. 2006. Gifts or poison? The cultural context of using public funds to pay for family caregivers. In Kunkel, S. R. and Wellin, V. (eds), Consumer Voice and Choice in Long-term Care. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 221–32.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Viking Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. 2004. The commodity frontier. In Alexander, J., Marx, G. and Williams, C. (eds), Self, Social Structure and Beliefs: Essays in Sociology. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 38–56.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. 2004 a. Het prijzen van de zorg: sociaal beleid op het snijvlak van privé en publiek [Valuing Care: Social Policy on the Edge of Private and Public]. Inaugural lecture, 18 May, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Available online at http://www.narcis.info/publication/ [Accessed 1 September 2009].Google Scholar
Knijn, T. 2004 b. Family solidarity and social solidarity; substitutes or complements. In Knijn, T. and Komter, A. (eds), Solidarity Between the Sexes and the Generations: Transformations in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 18–33.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Liefbroer, A. 2006. More kin than kind: instrumental support in families. In Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H., Family Solidarity in the Netherlands. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, 89–106.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. 1997. Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship. Social Politics, 4, 3, 328–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knijn, T. and Verhagen, S. 2007. Contested professionalism: payments for care and the quality of home care. Administration and Society, 39, 4, 451–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komter, A. 2004. Some darker sides of family solidarity. In Knijn, T. and Komter, A. (eds), Solidarity Between the Sexes and the Generations: Transformations in Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 133–49.Google Scholar
Komter, A. 2005. Social Solidarity and the Gift. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Komter, A. and Vollebergh, W. 2002. Solidarity in Dutch families: family ties under strain? Journal of Family Issues, 23, 2, 171–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, M. 2006. Consumers in charge of care: the Dutch personal budget and its impact on the market professionals and the family. European Societies, 8, 3, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunkel, S. R., Applebaum, R. A. and Nelson, I. M. 2004. For love and money: paying family caregivers. Generations, 27, 4, 74–80.Google Scholar
LeGrand, J. and Barlett, W. (eds)1993. Quasi-markets and Social Policy. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 2006. Care and gender: have the arguments for recognizing care work now been won? In Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. A. (eds), Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Policy, Bristol, 11–20.Google Scholar
Linsk, N. L., Keigher, S. A., Simon-Rusinowitz, L. and England, S. E. 1992. Wages for Caring: Compensating Family Care for the Elderly. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
Martin, C. and Le Bihan, B. 2007. Cash for care in the French welfare state: a skilful compromise? In Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds), Cash for Care Systems in Developed Welfare States. Palgrave, London, 32–60.Google Scholar
Pijl, M. and Ramakers, C. 2007. Contracting one's family members: the Dutch care allowance. In Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds), Cash for Care Systems in Developed Welfare States. Palgrave, London, 81–103.Google Scholar
Ramakers, C., Schellingerhout, R., Wijngaart, M. van den and Miedema, F. 2008. Persoonsgebonden budget nieuwe stijl 2007. Vervolgonderzoek. [Personal Budgets New Style 2007]. ITS (Institute for Applied Social Sciences), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Ramakers, C. and Wijngaart, M. van den. 2005. Persoonsgebonden budget en mantelzorg: onderzoek naar de aard en omvang van de betaalde en onbetaalde mantelzorg [Personal Budgets and Informal Care: A Study of the Nature and Quantity of Paid and Unpaid Informal Care]. ITS, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rossi, A. and Rossi, P. 1990. Of Human Bonding: Parent–Child Relations Across the Life Course. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Qureshi, H. 1996. Obligations and support within families. In Walker, A. (ed.), The New Intergenerational Contract: Intergenerational Relations, Old Age and Welfare. UCL Press, London, 100–19.Google Scholar
Qureshi, H. and Walker, A. 1989. The Caring Relationship: Elderly People and their Families. Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Social Insurance Bank (SVB) 2008. Modelovereenkomsten PGB [Contractual Guidelines for PGB]. SVB, The Hague. Available online at www.svb.nl/internet/nl/regelingen/pgb [Accessed 20 November 2008].Google Scholar
Timonen, V., Convery, J. and Cahill, S. 2006. Care revolutions in the making? A comparison of cash-for-care programmes in four European countries. Ageing & Society, 26, 3, 455–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. 1997. Social politics and the commodification of care. Social Politics, 4, 3, 362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. 2000. Thinking about the production and consumption of long-term care in Britain: does gender still matter? Journal of Social Policy, 29, 4, 623–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. 2003. Commodified care work in European labour markets. European Societies, 5, 4, 377–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. 2004. Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘cash for care’ schemes. Ageing & Society, 24, 2, 89–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerson, C. and Yeandle, S. (eds)2007. Cash for Care in Developed Welfare States. Palgrave, London.Google Scholar
Waerness, K. 2006. Research on care: what impact on policy and planning? In Glendinning, C. and Kemp, P. A. (eds), Cash and Care: Policy Challenges in the Welfare State. Policy, Bristol, UK, 21–31.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Maltby, T. 1997. Ageing Europe. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Wellin, C. 2006. Scrutinizing familial care in consumer-directed long-term care programs. In Kunkel, S. and Wellin, V. (eds), Consumer Voice and Choice in Long-term Care. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 195–200.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. 1993. Intergenerational solidarity from the point of view of people in advanced old age. In Becker, H. A. and Hermkens, P. L. (eds), Solidarity of Generations. Volume 2, Demographic, Economic and Social Change and its Consequences. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam, 625–43.Google Scholar