Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:24:10.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Gender, Household Composition and Receipt of Domiciliary Services by Elderly Disabled People*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Abstract

Using data from the 1980 General Household Survey, differences in the provision of statutory domiciliary services to disabled elderly people are explored. Domiciliary services vary in their degree of ‘substitutability’, that is, in the extent to which the care may be performed either by state services or by other members of the elderly person's household. Domestic support services are substitutable by any available carer; personal health and hygiene services are partially substitutable depending on the relationship between the carer and the cared for; and medical services are not substitutable by informal carers. The paper shows that discrimination by statutory services against women carers is dependent primarily on the household composition of the elderly person rather than on gender per se. Taking into account the level of disability of the elderly person, younger ‘single’ women carers receive no less support than ‘single’ men carers, but carers who are married women under 65 obtain the least domestic and personal health care support. Carers who are elderly receive more support than carers under 65. Among disabled elderly people who live alone, men receive somewhat more domestic and personal health services than women.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Allan, G. (1983), ‘Informal networks of care: issues raised by Barclay’, British Journal of Social Work, 13, 417433.Google Scholar
Bebbington, A.C. and Davies, B. (1983), ‘Equity and efficiency in the allocation of personal social services’, Journal of Social Policy, 12:3, 309330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, A., Wilkin, D. and Durie, A. (1983), Carers and Services: A Comparison of Men and Women Caring for Dependent Elderly People, Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.Google Scholar
Clarke, L. (1984), Domiciliary Services for the Elderly, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Social Security (1981), Growing Older, Cmnd 8173, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Equal Opportunities Commission (1980), The Experience of Caring for Elderly and Handicapped Dependants: Survey Report, EOC, Manchester.Google Scholar
Equal Opportunities Commission (1982), Who Cares for the Carers? Opportunities For Those Caring for the Elderly and Handicapped, EOC, Manchester.Google Scholar
Evandrou, M., Arber, S., Dale, A. and Gilbert, G.N. (1986), ‘Who cares for the elderly? Family care provision and receipt of statutory services’, in Phillipson, C., Bernard, M. and Strang, P. (eds), Dependency and Interdependency in Old Age—Theoretical Perspectives and Policy Alternatives, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Finch, J. (1984), ‘Community care: developing non-sexist alternativesy’, Critical Social Policy, 9, 619.Google Scholar
Finch, J. and Groves, D. (1980), ‘Community care and the family: a case for equal opportunities’, Journal of Social Policy, 9:4, 487511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J. and Groves, D. (1982), ‘By women for women: caring for the frail elderly’, Women's Studies International Forum, 5:5, 427438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds) (1983), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Graham, H. (1984), Women, Health and the Family, Wheatsheaf Books, Brighton.Google Scholar
Henwood, M. and Wicks, M. (1985), ‘Community care, family trends and social change’, Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs, 1:4, 357371.Google Scholar
Hunt, A. (1970), The Home Help Service in England and Wales, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Land, H. (1978), ‘Who cares for the family?’, Journal of Social Policy, 7:3, 257284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leat, D. (1986), ‘Privatization and Voluntarization’, Quarterly Journal of Social Affairs, 2:3, 285320.Google Scholar
Levine, E., Sinclair, I. and Gorbach, P. (1983), The Supporters of Confused Elderly Persons at Home, National Institute for Social Work, London.Google Scholar
OPCS (1982), General Household Survey 1980, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Parker, G. (1985), With Due Care and Attention: A Review of Research on Informal Care, Family Policy Studies Centre, London.Google Scholar
Rossiter, C. and Wicks, M. (1982), Crisis or Challenge? Family Care, Elderly People and Social Policy, Study Commission on the Family, London.Google Scholar
Townsend, P. and Wedderburn, D. (1965), The Aged in the Welfare State, G. Bell and Sons, London.Google Scholar
Ungerson, C. (1983), ‘Women and caring: skills, tasks and taboos’, in Gamarnikow, E. et al. (eds), The Public and the Private, Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Walker, A. (1981), ‘Community care and the elderly in Great Britain: theory and practice’, International Journal of Health Services, 11:4, 541557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, A. (ed.) (1982), Community Care: the Family, the State and Social Policy, Blackwell/Martin Robertson, Oxford.Google Scholar
Walker, A. (1983), ‘Care for elderly people: a conflict between women and the state’, in Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Lave: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Wenger, G.C. (1984), The Supportive Network: Coping With Old Age, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Wenger, G.C. (1985), ‘Care in the community. Changes in dependency and use of domiciliary services: a longitudinal perspective’, Ageing and Society, 5, 143159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, F. (1983), ‘Single carers: employment, housework and caring’, in Finch, J. and Groves, D. (eds), A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar