1 / 16

Reconciliation of work and family: children with disabilities

Reconciliation of work and family: children with disabilities. Joris Ghysels Faculty of Political and Social Sciences Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck (CSB) University of Antwerp. Overview. The data source: FFCS Panorama: the organisation of care for children in Flanders

conan
Download Presentation

Reconciliation of work and family: children with disabilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reconciliation of work and family: children with disabilities Joris Ghysels Faculty of Political and Social Sciences Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck (CSB) University of Antwerp

  2. Overview • The data source: FFCS • Panorama: the organisation of care for children in Flanders • Side-kick: children living in deprived families • Children with a handicap • Care • Brothers and sisters • Deprivation as a determinant of care • Conclusion

  3. The data source: FFCS • Survey of nearly 3000 families during the school-year 2004-2005 • 1929 Families with youngest <16 (Pop.Register) • 458 Families with a child with a handicap (Government Agency: Vlaams Agentschap voor Personen met een Handicap) • 434 Deprived families (Government Agency: Kind en Gezin) • Questions about parent(s) and children • Time Use frames (parents & children) • Questions asked to every parent in the household (not separated), not to children

  4. The time-use of parents: the use of care facilities is not generalised For all Flemish families with children (0-15), the following picture emerges on a ‘normal working week’: 36% Formal care (crèche, child minder, at school,…) 17% Informal care (almost exclusively grandparents) 28% Do not need care, because (at least) one parent has no job 6% Do not need care, because children stay home alone 13% Do not use care facilities, because parents organise their working schedule in a way that avoids care use  47% of the families organises it by themselves in a regular week

  5. The use of care facilities (youngest) With preschool children (minus 3): 32% Child minder 24% Nursery (crèche) 14% Grandparents 28% No care facilities used With school-age children (3 to 15): 13% Grandparents 12% School (pre- & afterschool care) 5% IBO (Initiatives for out-of-school care) 63% No care facilities used

  6. Children living in a deprived family • Detection by family nurses of ‘Kind and Gezin’ who visit all newborns at home. • A number of criteria: parental employment and educational level, living situation, income, child’s health and social surrounding) • About 6% of families with newborn in 2005

  7. Care for children living in deprived families (1) Pre-school children: 11% Child minder (Fl: 32%) 10% Nursery (crèche) (Fl: 24%) 7% Grandparents (Fl: 14%) 71% No facilities used (Fl: 28%)  Only 29% of the pre-school children are in care on a regular basis.

  8. Care for children living in deprived families (2) Explanations? • A large part of the children lives in a family without labour income (52% vs. 5% for children of the general sample) • Grandparents are available to a lower extent (29% has grandparents with a high availability score versus vs. 58% for children of the general sample)

  9. Children with a handicap • As registered by the Flemish government agency for care for the disabled • Disabilities can be: • Physical • Mental • Socio-emotional (e.g. learning disorder, ADHD) • The agency provides all kinds of services: • Residential • Semi-residential • Non-residential (at home, school, etc…)

  10. A child with a handicap (1) The average amount of time spent by type of care (weekly total)

  11. A child with a handicap (2) • Most important forms of formal care: the school (24%) and IBO’s (5%) ! Care by the school: 68% special school en 32% regular schools (“inclusive education”) • Limited users of formal care: use (semi-) residential care of the Flemish Agency • Users of formal care: use non-residential facilities, are younger than 12 and have an employed mother

  12. Siblings of a child with a handicap (3) Well-being of brothers and sisters of a child with a handicap (siblings) compared with average Flemish child • SDQ (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; Goodman): total score of problematic behaviour

  13. Siblings of a child with a handicap (4) • Educational lag

  14. Family context of a child with a handicap (5)

  15. Patterns of care (6) • Semi-residential and residential care (collective care) with special school (45%): • More problematic handicap • Less household resilience • Non-residential care or no use of special facilities with regular school (with or without special efforts of the Agency) (26%): • Less problematic handicap and stronger household • Non-residential care or no use of special facilities with special school (27%): • More problematic handicap and inactive mother

  16. Conclusion • The care for children with a handicap relies strongly on the resilience of parents: • Informal care is harder to organise • Inclusive arrangements (staying close to ‘regular’ society) require important parental effort • Yet, the household strength is not evenly distributed • Employment opportunities (education, divorce) • Disabilities among parents • Siblings with ‘special needs’ • Therefore, policy needs to be family-oriented. Tackling the problems of the handicapped persons is not enough. The family context requires attention

More Related