Order Code RL34123
Family Caregiving to the Older Population:
Background, Federal Programs, and
Issues for Congress
August 7, 2007
Kirsten J. Colello
Analyst in Gerontology
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Family Caregiving to the Older Population: Background,
Federal Programs, and Issues for Congress
Summary
Family caregiving to older individuals in need of long-term care encompasses
a wide range of activities, services, and supports. Caregiving can include assistance
with personal care needs, such as bathing, dressing, and eating, as well as other
activities necessary for independent living, such as shopping, medication
management, and meal preparation. In addition, family caregivers may arrange,
supervise, or pay for formal or paid care to be provided to the care recipient.
Family caregivers fulfill the majority of the need for long-term care by older
persons with chronic disabilities in the United States. As a result of increases in life
expectancy, as well as the aging of the baby-boom generation, demand for family
caregiving to the older population is likely to increase. However, demographic trends
such as reduced fertility, increased divorce rates, and greater labor force participation
among women may limit the number of available caregivers to older individuals, as
well as the capacity for caregivers to provide needed care.
Although many family caregivers find caregiving for an older family member
a rewarding experience, other life circumstances, in addition to caregiving, may
increase caregiver stress. For example, family members may not live in close
proximity to the care recipient, they may face the competing demands of child care
and elder care, and they may have to manage work with caregiving responsibilities.
As a result, family caregiving can lead to emotional and physical strain and financial
hardship. These effects are more likely to be felt among those caring for persons
with high levels of disability or cognitive impairment. Caregiver stress has been
linked to nursing home admission for the care recipient, thus interventions that can
reduce stress may also reduce nursing home placement.
Recognizing family caregivers as an important part of the nation’s long-term
care delivery system, the federal government has established programs and initiatives
that provide direct supports to caregivers, such as respite care, education and training,
tax relief, and cash assistance. These benefits are targeted at family caregivers to
reduce stress and financial hardship, and to improve caregiving skills, among other
things. Other federal programs and initiatives provide home- and community-based
long-term care services and supports to the care recipient. These programs can
indirectly benefit caregivers in relieving caregiver burden by either supplementing
the informal care they are providing or substituting with paid support.
Three sets of policies that would provide direct assistance to family caregivers
to older adults are briefly discussed in the last section of this report. These policy
issues, which have been the subject of discussion among federal policymakers and
other interested stakeholders, include the following: caregiver services and supports,
flexible workplace accommodations and income security, and additional tax credits.
This report will be updated as warranted.

---

Contents
What Is Caregiving? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Who Receives Care? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Who Provides Care? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
How Many Caregivers Are There? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What Are Their Characteristics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Long-Distance Caregiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Sandwich Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Work and Caregiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
How Much Care Do They Provide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Effects of Family Caregiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Economic Value and Costs of Caregiving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Federal Government Initiatives to Assist Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Programs and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Older Americans Act (OAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Grants to States (ADDGS) . . . . 22
Senior Companion Program (SCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Employment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Tax Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Exemptions for Dependents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Head of Household Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Unreimbursed Medical Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Caregiver Services and Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Workplace Accommodations and Income Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Tax Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. Federal Programs and Initiatives Offering Direct and Indirect
Benefits to Caregivers: Eligibility, Services, and Scope of Benefit . . . . . . . 32

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of Those Non-Institutionalized Aged 65 and Older
Receiving Care, by Type of Care and Level of Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Alternative Estimates of Number of Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Relationship of Caregivers to Care Recipients, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Monthly Hours of Help Provided by Informal Caregivers
to Noninstitutionalized Frail Older Adults, by Type and
Relationship, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 5. Selected National Family Caregiver Support Program Services,
by Number and Percentage of Caregivers Receiving Services, FY2004 . . 21
Table 6. Selected SSBG Expenditures, by Service, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Family Caregiving to the Older Population:
Background, Federal Programs, and Issues
for Congress
What Is Caregiving?
Caregiving encompasses a wide range of activities, services, and supports to
assist persons who are limited in their capacity for self-care because of a physical,
cognitive, or mental disability or condition that results in a functional impairment and
dependence on others. Those in need of assistance over an extended period of time
often require long-term care services and supports. Although the need for long-term
care affects people of all ages, the likelihood of needing long-term care assistance
increases with age.
Caregiving assistance to older persons with long-term needs can be provided in
a variety of settings, including the care recipient’s or caregiver’s home; in a
community residential setting, such as an assisted living facility; or in an institution,
such as a nursing home. Formal caregiving refers to care that is provided by paid
individuals who are employed by a long-term care service organization or agency,
such as a nursing home or home health care agency, or who are self-employed.
Informal caregiving refers to assistance provided by unpaid individuals, such as a
family member, friend, or neighbor. This report focuses on family caregiving —
informal care provided primarily by spouses and children — to the older population.
Family caregiving activities include assistance with personal care needs, or
activities of daily living (ADLs), such as eating, bathing and showering, dressing,
using the toilet, walking across a small room, and transferring (getting in and out of
a bed or chair). They may also include assistance with activities that are necessary
for independent living, or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), such as
shopping for groceries or personal items, performing housework or yardwork,
managing money, preparing meals, using a telephone, doing laundry, getting around
outside the home, and taking medications.
Other family caregiver activities may include accessing the health care and
social services systems, communicating with providers and insurers, and advocating
for the care recipient. In addition to hands-on assistance, caregivers may arrange,
supervise, or pay for formal care to be provided to the care recipient, either as
temporary relief from the caregiver’s responsibilities (i.e., respite care) or on a more
permanent basis. As caregiving needs change over time, formal and informal care
arrangements can also shift. Formal or paid care may supplement or substitute for
the informal caregiving activities provided by a family member.

---

CRS-2
Background
Family caregivers fulfill the majority of the need for long-term care by older
persons with chronic disabilities in the United States. More than 90% of older care
recipients receive informal care, either alone or in combination with formal care.1
Demographic trends such as increases in life expectancy, as well as advances in
medical care, have enabled persons with disabilities to live longer. As a result, the
demand for informal care provided to older relatives can last many years. The aging
of the baby-boom generation is also likely to increase demand for family caregiving
to the older population. Moreover, most older individuals prefer to remain in their
own homes and live in the community for as long as possible.2 Finally, the difficulty
of recruiting and retaining paid long-term care workers has placed increased pressure
on family caregivers.3 The growing demand for care provided in the home has
focused the attention of federal and state governments on efforts to expand programs
that provide services and supports to family caregivers.
As demand for caregiving to older persons with disabilities is likely to increase,
other demographic trends, such as smaller family sizes and increased divorce rates,
may limit the number of available caregivers to older individuals, as well as the
capacity for caregivers to provide needed care. Increased labor force participation
among women, who traditionally have assumed the role of family caregiver, may
make them unavailable to take on this role.4 Also, family members who no longer
live in close proximity may limit the direct-care assistance that families are able to
provide.
Family caregivers are diverse in terms of gender, age, relationship to the care
recipient, and life circumstances. For many, caregiving is a rewarding activity;
however, some may face challenges associated with their caregiving responsibilities.
Adult children caring for an elder parent might experience increasing stress or
financial hardship as a result of the competing demands of work or child care. Others
may experience increased physical and emotional strain sometimes associated with
assisting a spouse or parent who has a disability or is cognitively impaired. Research
indicates that, over time, a larger proportion of family caregivers were providing
1 Brenda C. Spillman and Kirsten J. Black, Staying the Course: Trends in Family
Caregiving, AARP Public Policy Institute (Washington, DC, November 2005). This report
is based on an analysis of the National Long Term Care Survey, 1999. (Hereinafter referred
to as Spillman and Black, Staying the Course: Trends in Family Caregiving, 2005.)
2 AARP, Beyond 50.5 — A Report to the Nation on Livable Communities: Creating
Environments for Successful Aging, AARP Public Policy Institute (Washington, DC, May
2005).
3 National Commission for Quality Long-Term Care, The Long-Term Care Workforce: Can
the Crisis Be Fixed? Institute for the Future of Aging Services (Washington, DC, January
2007).
4 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Participation Rates, Women, accessed at
[ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ep/labor.force/clra0414.txt] on August 2, 2007.

---

CRS-3
assistance to persons with higher levels of disability.5 Moreover, technical advances
in home care mean that caregivers are more likely to assist with medical equipment
and medications that require more skilled forms of care in the home, including
oxygen equipment, intravenous medications, and catheters.6 These caregivers may
have little training or formal assistance in providing such care.
The federal government has expressed an interest in directly supporting family
caregivers who provide the majority of long-term care assistance to older individuals,
as evidenced by the National Family Caregiver Support Program enacted under the
Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (P.L. 106-501). Sustaining informal
caregiving can offset the need for publicly financed care. However, demographic
shifts that may affect the supply of family caregivers raise concerns about whether
caregivers will be able to meet the potential increase in demand for long-term care
assistance by older individuals in the future. A recent study projects that the disabled
older population, even under the most optimistic scenario, will increase by 50%
between 2000 and 2040.7 Over this same period, the share of older adults receiving
paid long-term care is projected to increase (from about 22% to 26%), while those
receiving unpaid assistance from an adult child will fall (from 28% to 24%).8
Recognizing family caregivers as an important part of the nation’s long-term
care delivery system, the federal government has established programs and initiatives
that provide direct support to caregivers. Direct supports such as respite care,
education and training, tax relief, and cash assistance are targeted at caregivers to
reduce stress and financial hardship, and to improve caregiving skills, among other
things. Other federal programs and initiatives provide home and community-based
long-term care services and supports to the care recipient. These programs can
indirectly benefit caregivers in relieving caregiver burden by either supplementing
the informal care being provided or substituting some informal care with paid
support. Services provided to care recipients that can indirectly assist caregivers may
include formal personal care services, assistive devices, and home modifications,
among other things. Access to federal services that provide direct and indirect
benefits to caregivers have different eligibility criteria and benefits. As a result, these
services are often limited and may be insufficient in terms of the scope and duration
of benefits.
5 Mary Jo Gibson, In Brief — Staying the Course: Trends in Family Caregiving, AARP
Public Policy Institute, November 2005.
6 AARP, “Valuing the Invaluable: A New Look at the Economic Value of Family
Caregiving,” AARP Public Policy Institute (Washington, DC, June 2007). (Hereinafter
referred to as AARP, Valuing the Invaluable, 2007.)
7 Richard W. Johnson et al., Meeting the Long-Term Care Needs of the Baby Boomers: How
Changing Families Will Affect Paid Helpers and Institutions, The Retirement Project,
Discussion Paper 07-04, The Urban Institute (Washington, DC, May 2007).
8 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
Who Receives Care?
About 5.5 million adults aged 65 and older — about 16% of the U.S. population
aged 65 and older — receive long-term care services and supports. Of those
receiving services, the majority (70%, or 3.8 million) live in the community; the
remaining 30% (1.7 million) live in institutional settings.9
Generally, those individuals who live in long-term care facilities are the most
impaired; however, many older individuals with fairly significant limitations live in
the community. Eligibility for assistance through publicly and privately financed
long-term care benefits typically requires people to have limitations in or need
supervision with at least two or more ADLs. Of those aged 65 and older who live in
the community and receive long-term care, more than half (55.6%) have three or
more limitations in ADLs, 29.3% have limitations in one or two ADLs, and 15.1%
have less intensive needs, requiring assistance only with IADLs (see Table 1).
Among those older individuals who live in the community and receive
long-term care, the vast majority receive some form of informal care. For two-thirds
of this group (65.5%), informal care is the only source of care provided in the home;
another quarter (25.9%) receive some combination of informal and formal care, and
the remainder (8.5%) receive formal care alone. Although the presence of formal
care is more likely to increase as a care recipient’s level of disability increases, half
of those most severely impaired with five or six ADLs (50.6%) rely on informal
caregivers alone for their personal care needs (see Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of Those Non-Institutionalized Aged 65 and
Older Receiving Care, by Type of Care and Level of Disability
Informal
Informal and
Formal
Care Only
Formal Care
Care Only
Total
Number
Percentage
(in thousands)
Percentage
IADLs only
80.1
12.8
7.1
558
15.1
1-2 ADLs
75.8
16.1
8.1
1,086
29.3
3-4 ADLs
62.2
28.1
9.7
990
26.7
5-6 ADLs
50.6
40.8
8.6
1,068
28.9
Total
65.5
25.9
8.5
3,701
100.0
Sources: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, “Older Americans 2004: Key
Indicators of Well-Being,” Table 37b (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November
2004), p. 115; Data are from the 1999 National Long Term Care Survey.
Notes: Informal care refers to unpaid assistance provided to a person with a chronic disability living
in the community. Formal care refers to paid assistance. Data refer to Medicare enrollees living in
the community who report receiving personal care from a paid or unpaid helper for a chronic
disability. Figures may not add to 100.0% due to rounding.
9 CRS calculations based on unpublished tabulations from the 1999 National Long Term
Care Survey by Brenda C. Spillman, the Urban Institute, 2003. For further information, see
CRS Report RL33919, Long-Term Care: Consumers, Providers, Payers, and Programs, by
Carol O’Shaughnessy, Julie Stone, Laura B. Shrestha, and Thomas Gabe.

---

CRS-5
Other factors, such as gender and living arrangement, influence the type and
amount of informal care received. Research findings indicate that women are more
likely than men to receive any help, but that men receive a greater amount of care.10
Older men typically receive assistance from one caregiver, primarily their spouses,
whereas older women are more likely to have multiple caregivers. Variation in the
amount of care may be related to gender differences in the types of care received. For
example, men are more likely to receive help with personal care, housekeeping, and
meal preparation activities, whereas women are more likely to receive help with
transportation, shopping, and home repairs. Those who live with someone else
receive a substantially greater amount of informal care than those who live alone.
Alternatively, research has found that those who live alone, are not married, and live
in public housing are more likely to use paid care.11
Income of the care recipient may also influence the type of care received. Data
from a 2002 nationally representative study of the older population found that poor
and near poor older care recipients living in the community with severe disabilities
(i.e., three or more ADLs) were more likely to receive paid personal care assistance
than those with incomes greater than 125% of the federal poverty level (FPL).12
Greater reliance on paid help among the poor elderly most likely reflects assistance
from Medicaid and other public support programs. The same study found that those
with incomes between 125% and 400% of the FPL were more likely to rely on unpaid
assistance only and received less paid support than those with lower incomes. These
individuals are less likely to meet income eligibility requirements for public benefits,
such as Medicaid, and may be unable to afford the costs of privately paid care.
10 Sharon Tennstedt, Family Caregiving in an Aging Society, presented at the U.S.
Administration on Aging Symposium, Baltimore, MD, March, 1999, accessed at
[http://www.aoa.gov/prof/research/famcare.pdf] on July 1, 2007.
11 Ibid.
12 Richard W. Johnson and Joshua M. Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their
Caregivers, The Retirement Project, Occasional Paper Number 8, The Urban Institute
(Washington, DC, February 2006). (Hereinafter referred to as Johnson and Wiener, A
Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, 2006.) The authors’ estimates are
based on data from the 2002 Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey
of older Americans aged 55 and older and living in the community. The study classified
respondents as disabled if they reported any difficulty because of health or memory
problems with at least one ADL (bathing, getting in and out of bed, eating, dressing, walking
across the room, and using the toilet) or IADL (shopping for groceries, preparing hot meals,
using the telephone, taking medications, and managing money). Respondents were not
considered disabled if they expected their limitations to last less than three months. The
analysis is restricted to those aged 65 and older and living in the community in 2002. In this
analysis, “poor” refers to care recipients with incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty
level; “near poor” refers to care recipients with incomes between 100% and 125% of the
poverty level.

---

CRS-6
Who Provides Care?
How Many Caregivers Are There?
Estimates of the number of informal caregivers range from 7 million to 54
million (see Table 2). There is wide variation in these estimates for several reasons,
including differences in the definitions of caregiver and care recipient, the amount
and intensity of care provided, and the data collection methodology. Methodological
considerations include whether the respondent is asked to identify themself as a
caregiver or whether the care recipient identifies those who provide care, the time
frame for reporting caregiving activities (i.e., past year or no recall period), and the
sample size. These differences in methods make it very difficult to compare
estimates across surveys.
Table 2 shows the range of estimates of the number of caregivers from selected
national surveys, as well as a comparison of survey characteristics and methodology.
Estimates at the high end of the range include those individuals who provide care to
the adult-disabled or to individuals of all ages and use a less restrictive measure of
disability that may also include short-term disability or acute spells of illness.
Data from the 1999 National Long Term Care Survey (NLTCS) — the only
national survey that estimates the number of persons providing care to an older
population (age 65 and older) — estimated that 7 million individuals were providing
care to individuals aged 65 and older. This estimate is more conservative than other
survey estimates in part because a care recipient’s functional status or disability is
measured as receiving help with ADLs or IADLs for at least three months, a more
restrictive definition that measures chronic disability, defined as ADL or IADL
impairments lasting at least three months, among the older population.

---

s
elf
al
s
to
nths
ied
o
s;
.4
tif
4
idu
al
elp
m
ers
2003
4
v
18+
2
en
di
h
iv
-id
idu
v
In
e care of
ast 1
di
Need
tak
P
Self
6,139
in
1,247
careg
ds
ied
NAC/AARP
ol
to
tif
.4
2
elp
ers
seh
en
1997
2
50+
h
hs
iv
e care of
nt
-id
Hou
ast 12
o
Need
tak
self
P
m
Self
1,509
careg
s

r
ess
ied
ers

al
es
o

tif
s;
iv
.0
al
FCA
4
idu
v
ility
ic illn
en
NA
N
2000
5
ll ag
idu
di
n
A
-id
v
In
ro
di
ch
Self
1,000
in
266 careg
ers
W
s
Disab
al
ied
ers

ied

tif
iv
.0
idu
en
1997
7
v
55+
NA
di
ecif
sp
-id
NCOA/PE
In
Un
Self
200 careg
t
s
ess

al
es
illn

ied
; abou
.5
s; 2,829
idu
th
tif
ds
ave 7
9
v
ility
n
al
ll ag
o
en
ol
ers
W
di
A
-term
idu
iv
1998, 1996
In
g
isab
-id
n
t m
seh
v
o
u
r d
as
o
di
7
L
o
P
Self
36,700
h
60,000
in
careg
IPP
;
S
o
ds
t
s
CRS-
s
tw
L
a
ol
t

al
L
to
D
p
seh
.0
D
t
ied
u
s; abou
A
3
idu
u
v
A
15+
en
o
al
s
r I
ith
Wave 5
di
m
ecif
ied
e Estimates of Number of Caregiv
p
DL
1997, 1996
In
t 60,000
idu
L o
air
tif
ers
v
p
are recipien
en
lp
di
AD
im
Not s
C
id
he
36,700 h
abou
in
2,500 w
or IA
to
ts
p
u
lternativ
1
en
.0
ied
ilities
1999
7
tif
S
als
pairm
isab
C
u
en
ed 65+
d
T
id
im
iv
65+
a s
t id
ith
NL
d
DL
th
ied
ien
In
n
Table 2. A

o
ers
als w
.1
ecif
lp
u
1994
or IA
p
t 6,000 ag
id
L
he
iv
D
3+ m
bou
d
A
of
Not s
Care recip
five
A
in
s;
s
tal
al


s
s
7
al
en
es
r
th
idu
.0
on
n
ied
v
2
idu
tics
v
, o
o
tif
di
NSFH
1992
5
di
ll ag
n
n
A
erati
en
ers
ility
iv
sical or m
itio
-id
t 3,000
y
d
sid
h
n
isab
ast 12 m
P
co
d
con
P
Self
10,005 i
abou
careg
cal
r
o
s)
In
n
ogi
n
rs
n
l
e f
io

r
ize
ear
ol
g
at
na
tio
Y
illio
f
tio
od
in
le s
efram
p
regive
m
it o
erv
e
g
tus
eth
regive
im
esigna
am
Ca
(in
Un
obs
Care recipient characteris
A
Func
sta
M
T
report
Ca
d
S

---

,
C
al
ril
al
ch
p
are
cil
n
, D
rm
u
n
fo
A
e C
o
, su
o
g
In
Nation
in
ngt
isited
al C
a
E),
v
liv
P
ashi
S
],
e 7 Hom
aily
W
(A
, Nation
s from
g
g
f d
c. (
in
n
in
g
d
, I
ation
in
p
F
ities o
u
2007.
alu
d A
.:
ro
/carebro2.pdf
3,
d Ev
U.S
in G
care an
e
tal activ
w
May
an
, 1998, 1996, Wav
g
th
P, 2004.
en
Le
in
R
m
e
n
SIPP
in
A
u
h
g
in
str
T
/daltcp/reports
p;
,” Health
iv
d A
in
by
r Plan
ov
lts
u
an
accessed on
o
f
Grou
d
areg
C
],
s.g
h
in
C
efer to
ew
ily
: NA
r
prepared
pe.h
ecretary
e L
am
h
r Older A
e,”
t S
o
, DC
f
id
T
; IADLs
ttp://as
g
P, F
R
ton
g
g
Gu
[h
in
A
in
ssistan
at
iv
h
rce
A
d A
eatin
u
rce%20Guide.pdf
lated by
d
e
areg
an
an
eso
ril 11, 2007.
esou
th
p
, 1998,
C
., Was
ce C
, R
le, tabu
air,
tan
e U.S
ch
ram
%20R
fice of
ction
h
a
isited A
A
-Dis
, MD, 2000.
t
e Of
in
g
n
to
i
Prog
], v
on
ton
, 1997: NA
g
ed
d th
sion
L
g
in
a b
8
opical Modu
iv
pport
as
sin
m
u
) an
p
T
er, “
m
n
(AARP)
ro
oA
o
areg
f
g
CRS-
er S
iv
(A
: C
sons
P, C
g
/carebro2.pdf
g
ability
. Wag
R
in
in
errin
areg
g
iv
a L
-2000, Ken
Per
A
n
sf
C
lt Dis
A
u
ey
ed
rv
d A
ily
d
on
areg
A
u
, tran
.
gguidance/resources/NFCSP
an
g
am
Retir
C
ry
ro
al C
e 5,
er S
of
d
n
al F
f/p
/daltcp/reports
rm
iv
iletin
n
NA
ov
fo
), 1997: Don
io
ro
istration
lau
in
Wav
areg
, to
g
s.g
p.
g
m
h
, In
ciation
d
E
PEW
, C
, 2003:
e Nat
P
A
so
h
A
S
p.
1996,
ts (
C
d doin
T
er/carep
pe.h
Grou
ressin
iv
in
, “
d A
rus
NF
, d
, an
g
g
1992:
an
Grou
ew
e T
ican As
in
,
, 1997,
in
g
ttp://as
in
/careg
A
eals
o
e L
er
and AARP
ath
A
g
ew
h
itabl
C
m
ro
, 2000:
SFH)
IPP)
T
A
g
on
e L
S
A)
n
ap
N
har
N
as b
(
h
io
T
C
FC
ch
f/ao
, 1994: A
N
ro
, 1998, at [h
S)
lated by
, su
istrat
) and the Am
g
/p
eholds
C
P, 1997;
t, preparin
in
v
T
ion (
in
ction
L
ticipation (
abu
AC
R
en
m
o
lated by
and Pew
at
N
d
N
ci
A
liv
a.g
A
le, t
A)
em
A
abu
so
ao
in
O
: A
ag
vey (
C
aily
and Hous
am Par
an
rom
N
s As
f d
f
sion
Modu
, DC
m
S
www.
as
ogr
ng (
ver
regiving (
R
p
re Sur
, 1999, t
a
ey
a
cal
ton
g
n
C
m
C
ities o
o
C
o
opi
, 1997.
regi
in
by
a
h
: C
g
, m
erm
l on Agi
g
ed
g
NLTCS
in
activ
in
er) T
g
ly C
, Was
apt
vey of Families
iv
iv
d
ong T
ounci
e A
er to
h
ey
oppin
h
A
L
2002), at [http://
areg
C
Fami
rv
of Income and Pr
areg
t
u
ref
s
C
11, 2007;
(C
on
S
as
tional Sur
tional
vey
tional
tional
tional Alliance for
ugust
a
a
a
a
a
ADLs
Source:
A
Notes:
N
N
Sur
N
N
N
a.

---

CRS-9
What Are Their Characteristics?
Spouses and adult children are the most common source of informal care to the
older population with long-term care needs. A nationally representative survey of
older Americans found that among older disabled persons receiving informal care in
the community in 2002, more than 80% received some care from a spouse or adult
child, 13% received care from another relative, and almost 7% received care from a
non-relative.13
Family caregiving activities are highly concentrated; more than two-thirds of
care recipients received informal help from one caregiver.14 Marital status plays a
large role in determining the caregiver relationship (see Table 3). Married care
recipients were more likely to receive help from one adult caregiver, primarily their
spouse. Unmarried care recipients were more likely to receive help from more than
one helper, most often from their adult children.
Table 3. Relationship of Caregivers to Care Recipients, 2002
All Care
Married Care
Unmarried Care
Recipients
Recipients
Recipients
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Spouse
27.6
66.7
n/a
Daughter/daughter-in-law
36.4
18.5
49.1*
Son/son-in-law
16.4
7.3
22.9*
Grandchild
6.4
3.3
8.6*
Other relative
6.6
2.0
9.7*
Friend/neighbor
6.6
2.1
9.8*
Sources: Johnson and Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, Table 5.1,
2006; data are from the 2002 Health and Retirement Study.
Notes: Estimates are based on a sample of 2,427 caregivers to frail adults aged 65 and older living in
the community, of which 1,044 assisted married adults and 1,383 assisted unmarried adults. An
asterisk indicates that the estimate differs significantly (p < .10) from the estimate for married
recipients. Figures may not add to 100.0% due to rounding.
Women are the majority of informal caregivers to older adults. Because women
have longer life expectancies than men and caregiving is still viewed by many as a
woman’s responsibility, wives are more likely to care for their husbands and older
widows are more likely to be cared for by their daughters. In the 2002 Health and
Retirement Survey (HRS), daughters were more than twice as likely than sons to
provide care to their parents, regardless of the parent’s marital status. However, the
percentage of male caregivers has increased during the past few decades. Using data
13 Johnson and Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, 2006.
14 Ibid.

---

CRS-10
from the NLTCS, researchers reported a 50% increase in men reporting they were
primary caregivers from 1984 to 1994.15 Male caregivers were more likely to be
spouses and least likely to be friends or neighbors. However, women are more likely
to engage in the more physically demanding aspects of caregiving. A MetLife study
of working men and women caregivers found that while men were just as likely as
women to provide assistance with IADLs, such as managing medications, shopping,
and transportation, women reported more involvement with personal care tasks or
ADLs, such as bathing, dressing, and toileting.16
Caregivers can be of any age and face particular challenges based on their own
life circumstances, including the competing demands of work, child care
responsibilities, and chronic illness and decline in their own personal health. Most
spouses who provide care to their disabled elderly spouse are age 65 and older, with
44% of spouse caregivers in their 70s and about one-quarter in their 80s.17 Because
of advanced age and chronic illness, spouse caregivers may be in poor health
themselves. About one-third described themselves to be in fair or poor health, more
than 20% reported one or more limitations with ADLs or IADLs, and 17% reported
poor mental health, measured by the presence of depressive symptoms. Only a small
fraction of spouse caregivers reported they were employed full-time (6%); another
10% reported working part-time.18
Adult children providing care to their older parents are most likely to be in their
40s and 50s (68%). The greatest proportion of adult child caregivers live separately
from their older parent (68%). About one-third (32%) of adult child caregivers live
with their parent. More than half of adult children providing care to their older
parents worked full-time (53%), another 10% worked part-time.19
Long-Distance Caregiving. Observers have expressed concern that family
caregiving may be affected by a more mobile society, resulting in greater
long-distance caregiving and a reduced supply of family caregivers.20 However,
some researchers have questioned this notion, suggesting instead that our society is
actually less mobile than in previous decades.21 Data from the 2002 HRS indicate
15 Brenda C. Spillman and Liliana E. Pezzin, “Potential and Active Family Caregivers:
Changing Networks and the ‘Sandwich’ Generation,” The Milbank Quarterly,
78(3):347-374, 2000. (Hereinafter referred to as Spillman and Pezzin, Potential and Active
Family Caregivers, 2000.)
16 MetLife Mature Market Institute, The Metlife Study of Sons at Work: Balancing
Employment and Eldercare (New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 2003).
17 Johnson and Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, 2006.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 MetLife Mature Market Institute, Miles Away: The Metlife Study of Long-Distance
Caregiving (New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 2004). (Hereinafter referred
to as MetLife Mature Market Institute, Miles Away, 2004.)
21 Douglas A. Wolf and Charles F. Longino, Jr., “Our ‘Increasingly Mobile Society’? The
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
that the majority (63%) of frail older adults have at least one adult child living in
close proximity to them (defined as within 10 miles); almost 20% have two or more
adult children nearby.22
A study by MetLife found that half of long-distance caregivers, defined as living
more than one hour from the care recipient, reported that they played a secondary
helper role, typically to another sibling who lived near the care recipient. Although
primary caregivers may be more likely to live in close proximity to the care recipient,
the same study found that a sizeable group of long-distance caregivers (23%) were
the primary or only care provider. Both primary and secondary long-distance
caregivers reported living an average distance of 450 miles away. The majority
reported managing needed services, helping with IADLs such as shopping and
managing finances, and visiting at least a few times a month. These activities were
not only time consuming, with half spending the equivalent of one full day a week
managing care from a distance, but added a substantial financial burden in terms of
travel costs. Long-distance caregivers reportedly spent an average of $392 per month
on travel and out-of-pocket expenses. Nearly 80% of the caregivers surveyed were
employed either full- or part-time.23
The Sandwich Generation. Many researchers have focused attention on the
“sandwich generation” of caregivers — those caught between the demands of caring
for their aging parents and supporting their dependent children. Some have
expressed concerns that delayed fertility among women will lead to greater
caregiving burden, with demand for caregiving only increasing as the baby-boom
population ages. Approximately 3.5 million individuals, primarily women, were
potentially responsible for both an aging parent and a dependent child.24 According
to a 2004 survey of all family caregivers, including those caring for individuals under
age 65 with disabilities, more than one-third reported the presence of a child under
the age of 18 living at home. Adult caregivers under the age of 50 were more likely
to have a child in their home, compared with caregivers aged 50 and older. More
than half (52%) of caregivers between the ages of 18 to 34 and almost 6 in 10 (57%)
caregivers between the ages of 35 to 49 had a child under age 18 living in the
household.25
Although data suggest that many caregivers have been squeezed into the
“sandwich generation,” other research suggests that only a small subset of this group
are simultaneously providing support to a dependent child and parent. For this
reason, some researchers disagree about the caregiving demand and burden faced by
the “sandwich generation,” arguing that the phenomenon is an exception rather than
21 (...continued)
Curious Persistence of a False Belief,” The Gerontologist, vol. 45, no. 1 (February 2005),
pp. 5-11).
22 Johnson and Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, 2006.
23 MetLife Mature Market Institute, Miles Away, 2004.
24 Spillman and Pezzin, Potential and Active Family Caregivers, 2000. This report is based
on an analysis of the National Long Term Care Survey, 1994.
25 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., 2004.

---

CRS-12
the norm. These researchers maintain that child care activities and eldercare
activities more often occur sequentially rather than simultaneously.26 Moreover, the
types of activities and support provided to a dependent child may be very different
from those provided to a disabled parent.
Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Young Women found that about
1% of women aged 45 to 56 years old have both a parent and a child living in the
household.27 Broadening the definition of the “sandwich generation” of caregivers
to include those who are providing either financial support of more than $1,000 or
caregiving support of more than 500 hours to both a child and a parent, neither of
whom necessarily live in the same household, increases the percentage of women in
the “sandwich generation” to 9%.28
Work and Caregiving. A substantial share of caregivers are balancing work
with caregiving responsibilities. In a 2002 survey conducted by the Families and
Work Institute, more than one-third (35%) of workers indicated they provided care
for a relative or in-law aged 65 or older in the past year.29 However, those working
full-time are less likely to be shouldering the primary caregiving responsibility. A
2004 national survey conducted by the National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) and
AARP found that those who have a lower caregiving burden were more likely to be
employed full-time.30
Employed caregivers often make workplace adjustments to care for older family
members, such as changing their daily work schedules, reducing their work hours,
or taking a leave of absence to care for an older relative.31 Workplace policies that
can assist family caregivers to older adults include flexible work schedules, part-time
hours, job-sharing, paid and unpaid leave policies, telecommuting, and worklife
benefits such as counseling and information and referral services. The 2002 Families
and Worklife Institute survey found that elder care resource and referral services have
increased significantly in the past decade. In 2002, almost one-quarter of employees
26 Christine Himes, “Parental caregiving by adult women: A demographic perspective,”
Research on Aging, vol. 16 (2004), pp. 191-211; L.S. Loomis and A. Booth,
“Multigenerational caregiving and wellbeing: The myth of the beleaguered sandwich
generation,” Journal of Family Issues, vol. 16 (2005), pp. 131-148.
27 Charles R. Pierret, “The ‘sandwich generation’: women caring for parents and children,”
Monthly Labor Review, September 2006. This report is based on analyses of the1997 and
1999 waives of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Young Women.
28 Ibid.
29 James T. Bond et al., Highlights of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce,
Families and Work Institute, 2002.
30 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., 2004.
31 For further information, see CRS Report RL31755, Family Caregiving to the Elderly by
Employed Persons: The Effects on Working Caregivers, Employers, and Federal Policy, by
Linda Levine.

---

CRS-13
reported they had access to this benefit, an increase from 11% in 1992.32 Federal
initiatives such as the Family and Medical Leave Act provide a limited amount of
job-protected unpaid leave to qualifying employees. Also, some current law tax
provisions assist family caregivers with an older relative who is a qualifying
dependent. However, these federal provisions (discussed in the next section) are not
widely used for the purpose of caring for an older frail family member.33
How Much Care Do They Provide?
Family caregivers who are the primary source of care to an older disabled
relative spend a significant amount of time providing assistance. Primary ADL
caregivers helped the most by providing, on average, about 46 hours of care per week
(or 201 hours per month) — more hours than a typical full-time job. Those providing
primary IADL assistance averaged fewer hours of care, with about 83 hours per
month, or just over 19 hours on average per week. Spouses, who typically assume
the role of a primary caregiver, provided the most hours of care to a disabled older
spouse, followed by daughters, then sons (Table 4).
Table 4. Monthly Hours of Help Provided by Informal Caregivers
to Noninstitutionalized Frail Older Adults,
by Type and Relationship, 2002
Mean Hours per Month
Median Hours per Month
Caregiver Type
Primary ADL
201
90
Primary IADL
83
31
Other Caregivers
53
16
Relationship
Spouse
153
61
Daughter/daughter-in-law
98
31
Son/son-in-law
71
30
Other
83
20
Source: Johnson and Wiener, A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers, Table 5.2,
2006.
Notes: Data from the 2002 Health and Retirement Study. Estimates are based on a sample of 2,427
caregivers to frail adults aged 65 and older living in the community, which includes 738 primary ADL
caregivers, 736 primary IADL caregivers, and 953 other caregivers and helpers.
32 James T. Bond et al., Highlights of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce,
Families and Work Institute, 2002.
33 See CRS Report RL31755, Family Caregiving to the Elderly by Employed Persons: The
Effects on Working Caregivers, Employers, and Federal Policy, by Linda Levine.

---

CRS-14
Table 4 also shows that the median hours of care per month, regardless of
relationship or caregiver type, is substantially lower than the average or mean hours
of care per month. The 2002 HRS data suggest that the distribution of informal
caregiving hours is highly skewed. Thus, there is likely to be wide variation in the
amount of hours of informal care that caregivers reported providing to an older care
recipient. Indeed, the NAC/AARP 2004 survey of caregivers found that almost half
of caregivers to individuals of all ages reported providing up to 8 hours of care per
week (48%), whereas almost one-fifth of caregivers (17%) provided more than 40
hours of care per week. These data reflect the wide variation in amount of care and
a much greater intensity of caregiving for a relatively smaller but sizeable portion of
the caregiving population.34
Further research indicates that the amount of time spent caring increases
substantially for older persons with varying degrees of cognitive impairment.
Individuals aged 70 and older with no dementia received 4.6 hours of informal care
per week, compared with 13.1 hours per week for those with mild dementia, 22.0
hours per week for those with moderate dementia, and 46.1 hours per week for those
with severe dementia.35
Many family caregivers devote significant time assisting older adults during the
course of a year; however, caring for the long-term needs of an older frail family
member can continue for many years. In the 2004 NAC/AARP survey of caregivers,
the average duration of care was 4.3 years. Almost 30% of caregivers reported
assisting the recipient for five years or more. Older caregivers were more likely to
have been providing care for 10 years or more, compared with caregivers under age
50.36
The Effects of Family Caregiving
While many family members find caregiving a rewarding and satisfying activity,
caregivers may also face increased physical strain, emotional stress, and financial
hardship as a result of caregiving responsibilities. Moreover, caregiver satisfaction
and caregiver strain may be experienced simultaneously. Some caregivers find
personal satisfaction from forming a close relationship with a family member. They
may find caregiving fulfills a sense of duty to the recipient. Also, they may find
satisfaction from their personal belief that they can provide the best care to the
recipient.37 One factor associated with caregiver stress is whether the caregiver had
a choice in taking on caregiving responsibilities. Other factors associated with high
caregiver stress and strain include poor caregiver health and heavy caregiving burden.
34 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., April 2004.
35 Kenneth M. Langa et al. “National Estimates of the Quantity and Cost of Informal
Caregiving for the Elderly with Dementia,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 16
(November 2001), pp.770-778.
36 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., April 2004.
37 M. Nolan et al., Understanding Family Care: A Multidimensional Model of Caring and
Coping, (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1996).

---

CRS-15
One study found that those caregivers experiencing high levels of stress because of
heavy caregiving burden were more likely to provide more than 20 hours of care per
week, to provide care to a recipient with more than three ADLs, to have little to no
backup assistance, and to experience problems providing care (e.g., sleep
interruption, disruptive behavior by the care recipient).38
Most caregivers report they are in good health. However, factors such as age,
gender, education, income, and whether or not the caregiver lives with the recipient
are associated with the caregiver’s health.39 Caregivers with increased caregiving
responsibilities face greater levels of caregiver stress, which may place their physical
health at risk. Researchers have documented several adverse health outcomes related
to caregiving, including elevated blood pressure, impaired immune systems, and
potential increased risk for cardiovascular disease.40 Older spouse caregivers who
experienced caregiver-related stress had higher mortality rates than non-caregivers
of the same age.41 Research has also linked high levels of caregiver stress to nursing
home entry of the care recipient, where having a highly stressed caregiver increases
the likelihood that a chronically disabled older adult will enter a nursing home by 12
percentage points within one year and 17 percentage points over a two-year follow-up
period.42 The same study concluded that initiatives to reduce stress among caregivers
would also reduce the rate of nursing home admission.
Providing care to an older person can also affect a caregiver’s mental health.
Several studies have documented high levels of depressive symptoms and other
mental health problems among those who provide care compared with those who do
not.43 In particular, higher levels of depression are associated with caregivers
assisting those individuals with dementia. Studies have shown that about 30% of
38 Brenda C. Spillman, “Primary Informal Caregivers: Factors Associated with High Stress,”
presented at Conference on Caregiver Health as a Public Health Issue, Urban Institute,
Washington DC, September 26, 2006. (Hereinafter referred to as Spillman, Primary
Informal Caregivers, 2006.)
39 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., 2004.
40 Sunmin Lee et al., “Caregiving and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in U.S. Women: A
Prospective Study,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 24, pp. 113-119.
41 Richard Schulz and Scott R. Beach, “Caregivers as a Risk Factor for Mortality: The
Caregiver Health Effects Study,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 282,
no. 23 (1999), pp. 2215-2219.
42 Brenda C. Spillman and Sharon K. Long, “Does High Caregiver Stress Lead to Nursing
Home Entry?” Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, January 26, 2007.
43 Carolyn C. Cannuscio et al. “Reverberation of Family Illness: A Longitudinal
Asssessment of Informal Caregiver and Mental Health Status in the Nurses’ Health Study,”
American Journal of Public Health, vol 92, issue 8, pp. 1305-1311; Nadine Marks et al.,
“Transitions to Caregiving, Gender, and Psychological Well-Being; A Prospective U.S.
National Study,” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 657-667.

---

CRS-16
dementia caregivers suffer from depression, and more than 40% report high levels
of emotional stress as a result of caregiving.44
Research on caregiver burden indicates that caregivers need more assistance and
information on where to find supportive services. A national study of caregivers to
adults aged 60 and older found that more than one-third (35%) expressed a need to
find time for themselves. However, the same study reported that almost one-third of
caregivers said they did not know where they would turn for information on either
short- or long-term care for the care recipient.45 Another study found that high-stress
caregivers are more likely to say they need help with caregiving, time-off or a break
from caregiving responsibilities, and some form of financial assistance such as cash,
a tax break, or a subsidy for caregiving.46
Caregivers who do report using supportive services are more likely to be in
high-stress caregiving situations. In the 2004 NAC/AARP survey, caregivers were
more likely to report using supportive services if they assisted someone with
Alzheimer’s or dementia, lived with the person they also cared for, or were older
themselves (i.e., age 50 and older). Furthermore, those assisting individuals with
high levels of disability are more likely to report experiencing financial hardship and
requesting information about how to get financial help for the care recipient.47
Research comparing high-stress and low-stress caregivers found that caregivers
rating their stress level as 6 or higher on a scale of 1 to 10 were more likely to have
ever used paid help for ADLs, adult day care, or respite. The overwhelming majority
of low-stress caregivers reported that they did not use these services because they did
not need them. However, high-stress caregivers were four times more likely than
low-stress caregivers to indicate they have not used these services because they were
unaware of them, and 20 times more likely to report not using these services because
they could not afford them.48
The Economic Value and Costs of Caregiving
The total value (non-economic as well as economic) of caregiving to older
persons with disabilities can be substantial. Some researchers have attempted to
document the economic value associated with family caregiving. Generally, the
economic value of informal care is measured as the cost of replacing informal
(unpaid) care with formal (paid) care. Estimates of the value of informal care vary
widely, depending on the identified caregiving population, the number of caregivers
44 Kenneth E. Covinsky et al.,”Patient and Caregiver Characteristics Associated with
Depression in Caregivers of Patients with Dementia,” Journal of General Internal Medicine
vol. 18 (2003), pp. 1006-1014; Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and
Figures (Chicago, IL, 2007).
45 Sarah L. McKune et al., Caregiving: A National Profile and Assessment of Caregiver
Services and Needs, Rosalynn Carter Instute and the University of Florida, 2006.
46 Spillman, Primary Informal Caregivers, 2006.
47 National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, Caregiving in the U.S., 2004.
48 Spillman, Primary Informal Caregivers, 2006.

---

CRS-17
or caregiving hours counted, and the estimated hourly wage rate for caregivers’ time.
These studies provide the following estimates:
! Annual cost of replacing informal caregiving with paid home care at
$45 billion to $94 billion.49
! Imputed value of informal caregiving at $168 billion (18.7 billion
hours of caregiving at $9 per hour).50
! Economic value of caregiving using a range of three estimates —
from a low estimate of $149 billion (27 million caregivers each
providing 20.5 hours of care per week at $5.15 per hour) to a
mid-range estimate of $306 million (28.9 million caregivers each
providing 20.5 hours of care per week at $9.92 per hour) to a high
estimate of $483 billion (30.7 million caregivers each providing 20.5
hours of care per week at $14.68 per hour).51
! Economic value of unpaid caregiving activities in 2006 to be $354
billion, assuming 34 million caregivers each providing 1,080 hours
of care per year (about 21 hours of care per week) at a cost of $9.63
per hour.52
Other researchers, however, have cautioned that some estimates may overstate the
economic costs of informal caregiving.53 For example, some estimates may include
the time family members spend performing activities that they would have done
regardless of the care recipient’s disability status (e.g., meal preparation, shopping,
housework).
Some researchers have attempted to quantify the economic costs to family
caregivers and to employers that can be associated with caregiving. Caregivers that
take time out of the work force to care for a family member not only lose wages but
fail to accrue savings and benefits, which may place them at economic risk over their
lifetimes. Another measure of economic cost looks at lost economic productivity
resulting from caregiving activities. In a small, nonrepresentative study of family
caregivers, MetLife found that as a result of caregiving, informal caregivers lost a
49 Department of Health and Human Services, Informal Caregiving: Compassion in Action,
Administration on Aging, at [http://aspe.hhs.gov/search/daltcp/reports/Carebro2.pdf ].
50 Mitchell Laplante et al., “Estimating Paid and Unpaid Hours of Personal Assistance
Services in Activities of Daily Living Provided to Adults Living at Home,” Health Services
Research, vol. 37, no. 2 (April 2002).
51 Peter S. Arno, Economic Value of Informal Caregiving: 2004, presented at the Care
Coordination and the Caregiver Forum, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes
of Health, Bethesda, MD, January 25-27, 2006. This research is based on previous research
by the author and other researchers.
52 AARP, Valuing the Invaluable, 2007.
53 Douglas A. Wolf, “Valuing Informal Elder Care,” in Family Time: The Social
Organization of Care, edited by Nancy Folbre and Michael Bittman.

---

CRS-18
lifetime estimated average of $566,433 in pre-taxable wage wealth, $25,494 in Social
Security wealth, and $67,202 in pension wealth.54 Combined, the result is a loss in
total pre-taxable wealth of approximately $659,000 per person over a lifetime.55
Another study by MetLife and NAC estimated that the aggregate costs of caregiving
in lost productivity to U.S. businesses for full-time employees was between $17.1
and $33.6 billion annually, based on NAC’s 2004 survey of caregivers.56
Federal Government Initiatives to Assist Caregivers
The federal government has established programs and initiatives that provide
direct support to family caregivers, including grant programs authorized under the
Older Americans Act and Title XX of the Social Security Act (the Social Services
Block Grant program). These programs provide family caregivers with information
and referral, respite care, and training. In addition, some states’ Medicaid home and
community-based waivers offer respite care as a covered service. Recently, some
states began allowing family caregivers to be hired by the Medicaid beneficiary,
giving some cash assistance to caregivers. Other initiatives that offer direct
assistance to caregivers include the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides
unpaid leave to eligible employees in order to care for a spouse, parent, or child with
a serious health condition. Furthermore, tax provisions in current law offer
caregivers some direct tax relief.
Other federal programs and initiatives provide home- and community-based
long-term care services and supports to the care recipient. These programs can
indirectly benefit caregivers by relieving caregiver burden through supplementing the
informal care being provided by caregivers or substituting it with paid support.
Services provided to care recipients that can indirectly assist caregivers include
formal personal care services, adult day health care, assistive devices, transportation,
and nutrition services (i.e., home-delivered meals). Many of these services are
offered through the same programs mentioned above (i.e., Older Americans Act,
Social Services Block Grant, and Medicaid waivers).
Access to benefits that directly assist caregivers are often limited by program
funding and may be insufficient in coverage and duration. Furthermore, coverage for
direct benefits to caregivers may be uneven across states. Federal programs that
provide long-term care services to care recipients that, as a result, indirectly assist
caregivers are often limited to those recipients who meet certain age requirements
54 Wage wealth is defined as the present value of lifetime wages calculated as of the date of
retirement; Social Security wealth is defined as the respondent’s total estimated Social
Security benefits; pension wealth is defined as the respondent’s estimated average annual
pension benefits accumulated in retirement.
55 MetLife Mature Market Institute, The MetLife Juggling Act Study: Balancing Caregiving
with Work and the Costs Involved (New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
1999).
56 MetLife Mature Market Institute and National Alliance for Caregiving, The MetLife
Caregiving Cost Study: Productivity Losses to U.S. Businesses (Westport, CT: MetLife
Mature Market Institute, July 2006).

---

CRS-19
and financial and functional eligibility criteria (e.g., limitations with two or more
ADLs). In addition, some states use state-funds to provide programs and services,
such as respite care, or offer state tax benefits to assist family caregivers. These state
initiatives are outside of the scope of this report. The following describes the various
federal government initiatives and programs. A summary table of these federal
programs and initiatives is provided in the Appendix.
Programs and Services
Older Americans Act (OAA). The OAA (P.L. 89-73, as amended; 42 USC.
§ 3001 et seq.) funds a number of programs and activities to support family
caregivers of older individuals (aged 60 and older) directly through information and
referral services, respite, and caregiver training and support. The OAA also provides
indirect services that can assist caregivers through the delivery of other home- and
community-based services and supports.
National Eldercare Locator Service. Title II of the OAA requires the U.S.
Administration on Aging (AoA) to develop the National Eldercare Locator Service.
The Eldercare Locator Service allows caregivers and older adults to connect with
state and local area agencies on aging and community-based organizations that
provide services to older individuals. By calling a nationwide toll-free number
(1-800-677-1116, weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., EST) or accessing the website
at [http://www.eldercare.gov], individuals can access the resources of state and local
OAA information and referral programs and other service providers identified for
every ZIP code across the nation.
The National Eldercare Locator Service can help caregivers identify local
resources and enables long-distance caregivers to access information about services
available to family members in other parts of the country. The Eldercare Locator
Service can connect individuals to more extensive information sources for a variety
of services, including transportation, home-delivered meals, housing options,
Alzheimer’s hotlines, adult day care, respite services, home health services,
long-term care ombudsmen, and legal assistance.
In FY2005, more than 131,000 callers received information and referral services
through the toll-free number. For FY2007, overall funding available for National
Eldercare Locator Service program activities is approximately $1.2 million.
Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs). Another federal
initiative to provide family caregivers and individuals with information and improve
access to public and private long-term care services and supports at the community
level is the Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) program. A collaborative
effort of the AoA and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the
ADRC initiative provides grants to support states’ efforts to streamline information
and access to public and private long-term care services at the community level.
ADRCs are designed to be single points of entry to publicly administered long-term
care benefits funded under Medicaid, the OAA, and state programs. The vision of
AoA and CMS is for ADRCs to serve as highly visible places where people can turn
to for information and support on long-term care in every community.

---

CRS-20
To date, a total of 40 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories (Guam
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Island) have received grant funding
through the joint AoA/CMS ADRC program initiative: 12 in FY2003, 12 in FY2004,
and 19 in FY2005. Almost $34.2 million in grants were awarded to states between
FY2003 and FY2005. The OAA Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-365) authorized
AoA to award funds for ADRCs in all states.57
National Family Caregiver Support Program (NFCSP). The NFCSP
provides direct services for caregivers in five core service areas:
! Information about health conditions, resources, and
community-based services.
! Assistance with accessing available services.
! Individual counseling, support groups, and caregiver training.
! Respite care services to provide families temporary relief from
caregiving responsibilities.
! Supplemental services on a limited basis that would complement
care provided by family and other informal caregivers (e.g., adult
day health care, home care, home modifications, incontinence
supplies, nutritional supplies, assistive devices).
Priority for NFCSP services is given to caregivers aged 60 and older. Services
are intended to be distributed to individuals with the greatest economic or social
need; particular attention is given to low-income older individuals. However, the law
also clarifies that priority is to be given to older individuals who are providing care
to those with severe disabilities (including children with severe disabilities). Among
other things, the OAA Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-365) included additional
provisions giving priority for NFCSP services to those caregivers who provide
assistance to older persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related neurological
disorders. For FY2007, NFCSP funding accounts for $156.2 million, or 8.4% of
total OAA expenditures.58
Table 5 shows the number of caregivers who received assistance by service type
for selected NFCSP services in FY2004. Using the most conservative national
estimate of caregivers to the chronically disabled elderly (7.0 million from the
NLTCS 1999 survey; see Table 2), it is estimated that approximately 7.5% of
caregivers received assistance in locating services from both private and voluntary
agencies, 4.6% received counseling and training services, and 2.7% received respite
care. Thus, it appears that these services assist only a relatively small percentage of
57 For further information, see CRS Report RL31336, The Older Americans Act: Programs,
Funding, and 2006 Reauthorization (P.L. 109-365), by Carol O’Shaughnessy and Angela
Napili.
58 See CRS Report RL33889, Older Americans Act: FY2007 Funding and FY2008 Budget
Request, by Angela Napili.

---

CRS-21
family caregivers. However, because data sources vary by year and defined
population, these estimates should be interpreted with caution. The percentages
presented in Table 5 are meant to illustrate current NFCSP service resources relative
to the size of the caregiving population. In contrast, the NFCSP provided many
more caregivers with information, referral, and outreach services (not shown in
Table 5) with 13 million contacts, including information on available caregiver
resources to more than 9 million families.
Table 5. Selected National Family Caregiver Support Program
Services, by Number and Percentage of Caregivers
Receiving Services, FY2004
Number of Caregivers
Percentage of Caregivers
Service Type
Receiving Service
Receiving Service
Access assistance
525,000
7.5%
Counseling and training
322,000
4.6%
Respite care
190,000
2.7%
Source: Administration on Aging, Fiscal Year 2007: Justification of Estimates of Appropriations
Committees, Department of Health and Human Services, 2007; CRS estimates based on source cited.
Notes: Data on services is for FY2004 from AoA administrative sources; the denominator used to
calculate the number of caregivers (7.1 million) is from the 1999 NLTCS. Priority for OAA services
is given to older care recipients, defined as being age 60 and older, and their families. The NLTCS
is based on a population of Medicare recipients, aged 65 and older.
Home and Community-Based Supportive Services. Title III home- and
community-based services provide for a broad array of supportive services to assist
caregivers indirectly by helping older adults remain in their own homes for as long
as possible. These services include transportation; case management; in-home
services, such as personal care, chore, and homemaker services; and community
services, such as adult day health care and senior center activities. These services can
assist caregivers indirectly by allowing them to continue working, and directly by
providing brief respite from caregiver responsibilities or helping to alleviate caregiver
burden.
In FY2004, transportation services provided more than 36 million rides to
doctors’ offices, grocery stores, senior centers, meal sites, and other critical daily
activities. Personal care, homemaker, and chore services provided over 20 million
hours of assistance to older adults to perform both ADLs and IADLs.59 Case
management services provided almost 4 million hours of assistance conducting needs
assessment, developing care plans, and arranging services for older adults and their
caregivers. Moreover, adult day health care provided over 8 million hours of care for
59 Administration on Aging, Fiscal Year 2007: Justification of Estimates of Appropriations
Committees, Department of Health and Human Services, 2007.

---

CRS-22
dependent adults in a group setting for some portion of the day. For FY2007,
funding for OAA supportive service programs is $350.6 million.60
Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Grants to States (ADDGS). The
Alzheimer’s Disease Demonstration Grants to States (ADDGS) program provides
competitive grants to help states plan and coordinate demonstration programs that
address the specific needs of Alzheimer’s patients, with particular focus on
hard-to-reach and underserved persons with the disease. Grant funds support a
variety of demonstration activities, some of which address the demands that
Alzheimer’s disease places on family caregivers. States may use funds to deliver
respite care services that can directly benefit family caregivers, as well as supportive
services (i.e., home health, personal care, day care, and companion services) that can
indirectly benefit caregivers.
The ADDGS program was established under Section 398 of the Public Health
Service Act (P.L. 78-410;42 U.S.C. 280c-3) and is administered by the AoA. In
FY2005, the ADDGS program awarded grants to 36 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico. For FY2007, funding for ADDGS is $11.7 million.61
Senior Companion Program (SCP). Title II-C of the Domestic Volunteer
Service Act (DVSA, P.L. 93-113), as amended, establishes the Senior Companion
Program (SCP). Administered by the Corporation for National and Community
Service, SCP provides older adults with the opportunity to assist homebound, frail
elderly, and other adults with disabilities. SCP volunteers offer companionship to
care recipients, as well as help with transportation and a variety of in-home tasks, so
that older individuals can remain independent in their homes. Volunteers can directly
assist family caregivers by providing respite care. Other services, such as
transportation to medical appointments, can indirectly benefit family caregivers. For
FY2007, funding for SCP is $46,964.62
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Title XX of the Social Security Act
authorizes the SSBG block grant. SSBG directs funds to states for a broad array of
social services. Direct services that states may make available to caregivers through
SSBG include information and referral and respite care. Although respite services
are not specifically mentioned in statute, they fall within the allowable social services
that states may provide.63 Services provided to persons with long-term care needs,
including adult day care, home-delivered and congregate meals, and home-based
services, such as homemaker, chore, home maintenance, and house management
services, may also provide indirect benefits to caregivers.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 See CRS Report RL33931, The Corporation for National and Community Service:
Overview of Programs and FY2008 Funding, by Ann Lordeman and Abigail B. Rudman.
63 SSBG regulations include a list of 29 uniform definitions of service categories for which
SSBG funds may be used, including “prevention and intervention services” and “special
services for the disabled,” which include respite care.

---

CRS-23
The SSBG program is administered by the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF). The ACF allocates funds to the states and territories, who then in
turn determine whether services will be provided by state or local agency staff or
through grants or contracts with private organizations. States have broad discretion
in determining the use of SSBG funds. There are no federal eligibility requirements
for SSBG activities. States may set their own criteria (with the exception of any
SSBG funding that comes via a transfer from the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families [TANF] block grant; individuals served with TANF funds must be below
200% of the Federal Poverty Level).64
In 2005, SSBG fund allocations were $1.68 billion and TANF transfers to SSBG
were about $832 million, for a total of $2.5 billion in SSBG expenditures.65
However, the services that provide direct and indirect support to caregivers are small,
relative to total SSBG program expenditures. Furthermore, SSBG services are not
exclusively targeted at caregivers or older adults and vary by state. For example,
2005 SSBG expenditures for home-based services, information and referral, and
adult day care combined were less than 9% of total SSBG expenditures (see Table
6).
Table 6. Selected SSBG Expenditures, by Service, 2005
2005 Total SSBG
Expenditures
Percentage of Total
Number of
SSBG Service Category
(millions)
SSBG Expenditures
States
Information and Referral
$19.2
0.8%
18
Home-Based Services
$176.1
7.0%
34
Adult Day Care
$12.4
0.5%
22
Source: Adapted by CRS from DHHS, Social Services Block Grant Program: 2005, accessed at
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html].
Note: Total SSBG expenditures includes SSBG expenditures and any expenditures made from TANF
transfers.
Medicaid. The Medicaid program gives states the ability to cover services that
can directly and indirectly assist family members who provide long-term care to an
eligible beneficiary. Jointly funded by federal and state governments, Medicaid is
a state-administered entitlement program that operates within broad federal
guidelines. The program covers long-term care services in both institutional and
home- and community-based settings for eligible persons with disabilities of all ages
and is intended to serve as a safety net for those who cannot afford the cost of care.
64 For further information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX
of the Social Security Act), by Melinda Gish.
65 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Community Services, Social Services Block Grant Program: 2005, at
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/annrpt/2005/index.html]. (Hereinafter referred
to as DHHS, Social Services Block Grant Program: 2005.)

---

CRS-24
The majority of Medicaid home- and community-based services are designed
to help the beneficiary live and function independently in the community. One
optional service under Medicaid that directly assists family caregivers is respite care.
Respite care can provide direct assistance to caregivers who need a short break from
caregiving responsibilities. States that choose to offer respite care may target this
service to specific beneficiaries and limit the benefit amount available.
Another Medicaid program feature that states have experimented with is
consumer-directed service delivery models. These programs often allow the
consumer (i.e., the beneficiary) to hire family members to provide certain long-term
care services. Thus, in some circumstances, family caregivers may be paid with
Medicaid dollars to provide personal care services. Self-directed program models
can assist family caregivers by providing some monetary compensation. Cash
assistance to caregivers may help caregivers replace lost wages from unpaid time off
work or continue to provide care in the care recipient’s home rather than transferring
the care recipient into an institution. Hiring family caregivers may increase the
supply of direct care workers, particularly in rural and hard-to-service areas.66
Other Medicaid home- and community-based services may indirectly benefit
family caregivers by supplementing informal care provided to beneficiaries in the
home or substituting some informal care for formal care. These services may have
an indirect effect on family caregivers by relieving the strain and physical burden
often associated with hands-on care to a disabled older family member while
allowing the care recipient to remain in the home. Home- and community-based
services may include personal care services, case management, homemaker/home
health aide services, and adult day health, among other services.
Employment Policy
To assist workers in balancing work and caregiving-related activities, Congress
passed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA, P.L. 103-3). The FMLA
makes it possible for workers who take time off to care for a parent, spouse, or child
with a serious health condition to do so without fear of jeopardizing their jobs. The
FMLA requires private employers with at least 50 employees employed within 75
miles, and public employers, regardless of size, to extend job-protected, unpaid leave
to employees who meet length-of-service and hours-of-work eligibility requirements.
Covered, eligible employees are entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year.
Employees can also invoke FMLA to care for a newborn, newly adopted, or newly
placed foster child and to attend to their own serious health condition.67
According to a U.S. Department of Labor survey conducted in the late 1990s,
most employees reported attending to their own health as the predominant reason for
66 For further information on consumer-directed care, see CRS Report RL32219, Long-Term
Care: Consumer-Directed Services Under Medicaid, by Karen Tritz.
67 For further information, see CRS Report RL31760, The Family and Medical Leave Act:
Recent Legislative and Regulatory Activity, by Linda Levine.

---

CRS-25
taking leave under the act (48.7%). Only 10.6% of workers reported using the FMLA
to care for a seriously ill parent.68
As of 2006, 45 states and the District of Columbia had enacted family and
medical leave laws. Generally, the FMLA and state family and medical leave laws
are similar with regard to the availability of leave, but can differ in terms of coverage
and scope (e.g., cover small firms and other reasons for leave). In addition, some
employers offer paid family and medical leave benefits. Because FMLA was
intended to guarantee the minimum benefit, employees are entitled to the more
favorable leave benefits offered under state law or by an employer.69
Tax Policy
Tax provisions in current law provide benefits to some caregivers of older
family members. Two tax provisions that provide direct benefits to family caregivers
include the dependent care tax credit (DCTC) and the exclusion from income for
employer-provided dependent care assistance programs (DCAP). Three provisions
that provide indirect assistance include the dependancy exemption, the head of
household filing status, and deductions for unreimbursed medical expenses. Rules
regarding eligibility and other limitations sometimes restrict the use of these benefits.
Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)70. Caregivers may be eligible for a
tax credit to offset some costs of formal care for a qualifying child or a disabled
spouse or dependent. The qualifying child must be the taxpayer’s dependent and
under age 13 when care was provided; the qualifying spouse or dependent of the
taxpayer must be physically or mentally incapable of providing self-care and live
with the taxpayer for more than half the tax year.71 A special rule permits the
disabled person to be classified as a dependent even if they have gross income of
$3,400 (i.e., the exemption amount in 2007) or more. The credit is limited to
circumstances in which the child or dependent care is necessary for the taxpayer’s
employment. Dependent care may be provided by either a private individual (e.g.,
personal care, home health) or a dependent care center that meets state and local laws
and regulations (e.g., adult day health center).
The DCTC is calculated as a percentage of qualified employment-related
expenses. These expenses are limited to $3,000 for one qualifying individual and to
68 For further information, see CRS Report RL31755, Family Caregiving to the Elderly by
Employed Persons: The Effects on Working Caregivers, Employers, and Federal Policy, by
Linda Levine.
69 For further information, see CRS Report RL33710, State Family and Medical Leave
Laws, by Jon O. Shimabukuro, Cassandra LaNel Foley, and Tara Alexandra Rainson.
70 Sec. 21 of the Internal Revenue Code.
71 Persons who cannot dress, clean, or feed themselves because of physical or mental
problems or who must have constant attention to prevent them from injuring themselves or
others are considered not able to care for themselves. For further information, see
Department of the Treasury, Publication 503 Child and Dependent Care Expenses: For use
in preparing 2006 Returns, Internal Revenue Service, 2006.

---

CRS-26
$6,000 for two or more qualifying individuals. In addition, qualified expenses cannot
exceed the earned income of the taxpayer. For married taxpayers, qualified expenses
are limited to the earned income of the lesser earning spouse.72 The credit rate is
35% for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income (AGI) does not exceed $15,000, and
is gradually reduced to 20% for taxpayers whose AGI is over $43,000. For example,
a married couple with a dependent frail parent living in their household, earning
$50,000 and having $3,000 in qualifying expenses, would be eligible for a credit of
$600 (i.e., $3,000 x 20%).73
The DCTC is nonrefundable, so the credit is limited by the taxpayer’s regular
income tax liability. A taxpayer whose tax liability is completely offset by his or her
standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions does not benefit from the
credit. As a consequence, many lower income taxpayers cannot claim the credit. For
example, in 2007, a married couple with one dependent does not benefit from the
credit until their AGI exceeds $20,900. They could not claim the full credit based on
$3,000 of qualifying expenses until their AGI reaches $29,001. Depending on the
couples’ other deductions and exemptions, the income threshold could be even
higher.
The Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP)74. Caregivers who
work for employers with a DCAP may exclude up to $5,000 of earnings used for
qualified dependent care expenses. The exclusion applies to income taxes and
employment taxes. The definitions for qualified dependent care expenses and
qualifying person are the same as the DCTC. The employer DCAP must be a written
plan that meets certain rules for nondiscrimination among employees. Employers can
provide day care themselves, provide direct payments to other providers, or
reimburse employees for care they have arranged. Usually, DCAPs are funded under
salary reduction agreements through a “cafeteria plan.”75 Like the DCTC, the amount
of the DCAP exclusion cannot exceed the earned income of the taxpayer or, in the
case of a married couple, the earned income of the lower-paid spouse.
The DCAP limit of $5,000 in qualifying expenses applies regardless of the
number of qualifying individuals. For families with only one qualifying person, the
DCAP can be more advantageous than the DCTC, for which the limit on qualifying
expenses is $3,000. Taxpayers can use both the DCTC and the DCAP in the same
year, but not for the same expenses. Qualifying DCTC expenses must be reduced by
the DCAP exclusion. Thus, if the married couple with the frail older parent also had
72 Exceptions are for a student spouse or disabled spouse.
73 For further information, see CRS Report RS21466, Dependent Care: Current Tax Benefits
and Legislative Issues, by Christine Scott.
74 Sec. 129 of the Internal Revenue Code.
75 Cafeteria plans are employer-established benefit plans under which employees may
choose between receiving cash (typically additional take-home pay) and certain normally
nontaxable benefits (such as employer-paid health insurance) without being taxed on the
value of the benefits if they select the latter. For further information, see CRS Report
RL33505, Tax Benefits for Health Insurance and Expenses: Overview of Current Law and
Legislation, by Bob Lyke and Julie M. Whittaker.

---

CRS-27
a child under 13 living in their household and spent $6,000 or more on care, they
could use the DCAP for $5,000 of the expenses and the DCTC for $1,000 of the
expenses (i.e., the $6,000 maximum expenses for the DCTC minus $5,000 excluded
under the DCAP).76
Income tax savings from the DCAP depend on the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate.
For example, a taxpayer in the 10% bracket would save $500 from a $5,000 DCAP
exclusion (i.e., $5,000 x 10%), whereas a taxpayer in the 25% bracket would save
$1,250 (i.e., $5,000 x 25%). In addition, they both would save $383 in employment
taxes ($5,000 x 7.65%).
Exemptions for Dependents77. Caregivers may be allowed a tax exemption
for an older adult if they can claim him or her as a dependent. In general, to be a
dependent, a person must be a qualifying child or a qualifying relative. The
definition of a qualifying relative is defined broadly to include both relatives and
non-relative household members. A qualifying relative could be a
! father, mother, or an ancestor or sibling of a father or mother (e.g.,
grandmother, grandfather, aunt, or uncle);
! brother, sister, or a son or daughter;
! child, stepchild, foster child, or a descendant of the child (e.g.,
grandchild);
! stepbrother, stepsister, stepfather, stepmother, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, or
sister-in-law; or
! any other person (other than a spouse) who lived with the taxpayer
all year as a household member, as long as the relationship did not
violate local law.
To claim a qualifying relative as a dependent, the taxpayer must provide more
than half of the person’s support during the calendar year. Multiple support
agreements permit one taxpayer to claim the dependent when several taxpayers
together provide more than half of support. The qualifying relative must also have
a gross annual income that is less than the exemption amount (i.e., $3,400 in 2007).78
Tax savings from the dependent exemption depend on the taxpayer’s marginal
tax rate. A taxpayer in the 10% bracket would save $340 (i.e., $3,400 x 10%) by
76 Ibid. For further information, see CRS Report RL31755, Family Caregiving to the
Elderly by Employed Persons: The Effects on Working Caregivers, Employers, and Federal
Policy, by Linda Levine.
77 Secs. 151 and 152 of the Internal Revenue Code.
78 Department of the Treasury, Exemption, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information,
Internal Revenue Service, Publication 501, 2006.

---

CRS-28
claiming a single dependent exemption. A taxpayer in the 25% bracket would save
$850 (i.e., $3,400 x 25%).
Head of Household Status.79 Unmarried caregivers in some caregiving
situations may be eligible for a more advantageous tax filing status. Generally,
taxpayers who are unmarried must file as single taxpayers. However, unmarried
taxpayers can claim the more favorable head of household filing status if they paid
more than half the cost of keeping up a home and a qualifying person lived with them
for more than half the year. A special rule permits an unmarried taxpayer who has
a dependent parent to claim the head of household filing status even if the parent
lives in a different household. The taxpayer must also pay more than half the cost of
keeping up the home that was the parent’s main home for the entire year; this
includes paying more than half the cost of a rest home, or home for the elderly.
The head of household filing status is more advantageous than the single filing
status. The standard deduction for a single taxpayer in 2007 is $5,350, and for a head
of household, $7,850. In addition, the tax brackets are more favorable. For example,
in 2007, for a single taxpayer, the 25% tax rate starts with a taxable income of
$31,850, but for the head of household, the tax rate starts with a taxable income of
$42,650.
Unreimbursed Medical Expenses.80 Caregivers may claim a tax deduction
for unreimbursed medical expenses provided to a care recipient. Specifically,
taxpayers who itemize their deductions may deduct unreimbursed medical expenses
to the extent they exceed 7.5% of AGI. These expenses can be for the taxpayer, the
taxpayer’s spouse, or dependents. A special rule permits deductions for
unreimbursed medical expenses for a qualifying dependent who has gross annual
income of $3,400 or more (in 2007).
Medical expenses must be primarily to alleviate or prevent a mental or physical
illness, and do not include expenses for the benefit of general health. The former
expenses include costs for equipment, supplies, and diagnostic devices needed for
these purposes, in addition to dental expenses. Expenses also include health
insurance premiums paid by the taxpayer and, in some cases, transportation to
medical care, qualified long-term care costs, and long-term care insurance premiums
that do not exceed certain limitations.
This deduction is not widely used. For most taxpayers, the standard deduction
is larger than the sum of their itemized deductions; moreover, most do not have
unreimbursed medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of AGI. In 2003, about one-third
(34%) of all individual income tax returns had itemized deductions. Of these returns,
less than 20% (about 6.7% of all returns) claimed a medical expense deduction.81
79 Sec. 2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.
80 Sec. 213 of the Internal Revenue Code.
81 For further information, see CRS Report RL33505, Tax Benefits for Health Insurance and
Expenses: Overview of Current Law and Legislation, by Bob Lyke and Julie M. Whittaker.

---

CRS-29
Issues for Congress
As the nation prepares for the growing older population and likely increase in
demand for long-term care services among the frail elderly, Congress will face a
decision whether to expand the role of the federal government in providing direct
support to family caregivers. Some policy makers may favor enhancing services and
supports that provide either direct assistance or federal income tax relief to
caregivers. In doing so, the federal government would devote additional funding to
new or existing programs or reduce federal revenues, implying increasingly difficult
tradeoffs between support to caregivers and federal programs that benefit other
populations.
Alternatively, other policy makers may feel that greater state assistance to family
caregivers is warranted, and that the federal government can best serve family
caregivers by providing technical assistance to states in service planning and
delivery. Still others may believe the federal government has a limited responsibility
in assisting families who provide unpaid assistance, many by choice, to older
individuals. Thus, Congress may decide that no additional federal assistance can be
made available to help family caregivers. In this case, federal policy makers may
want to evaluate how best to spend existing funds.
This section briefly describes three sets of policies that would expand or
enhance the federal government’s role in providing direct assistance to family
caregivers to older adults. These policy issues, which have either received recent
congressional attention or otherwise been the subject of discussion among federal
policy makers and other interested stakeholders, are organized into the following
topics: enhancing and expanding caregiver services and supports, assisting employed
caregivers through flexible workplace accommodations and income security, and
providing caregivers with opportunities for additional tax credits.82
Caregiver Services and Supports
Many family caregivers identify the need for enhanced services and supports
that can help them with their current caregiving responsibilities and provide further
information assistance as caregiving demands change over time. Policy makers
indicate that services such as respite care can improve care quality, avoid burnout,
and allow caregivers to continue providing informal care to an older relative, thus
potentially avoiding or delaying unnecessary institutionalization. Proponents of
increased federal funding for services and supports to caregivers have indicated the
need for enhanced education and training for caregivers so that they can develop the
skills necessary to provide quality care to a frail elderly population. Others have
suggested targeting services and supports to those caring for individuals with specific
illnesses or disease, such as Alzheimer’s.
82 For further information on legislation enacted in the 109th Congress and proposals
introduced in the 110th Congress that directly assist family caregivers, see CRS Report
RS22716, Family Caregiving to the Older Population: Legislation Enacted in the 109th
Congress and Proposals in the 110th Congress, by Kirsten J. Colello.

---

CRS-30
Advocates have also suggested adding an assessment of the caregiver’s needs
to the existing eligibility determination and assessment processes for public
benefits.83 The caregiver assessment process would identify and link appropriate
services and support for family caregivers. These services could provide back-up
support, in cases of emergency, counseling, or respite care. Caregiver assessments
would also elicit information about the caregiver’s health, willingness to provide
care, and training and support needs. Through the assessment process family
caregivers could learn about the resources available to them in their communities.
Workplace Accommodations and Income Security
Employed family caregivers often face disruptions in their work patterns as a
result of elder care responsibilities. These disruptions may include arriving to work
late or leaving early, taking time off during the day, reducing the number of hours
worked from full-time to part-time status, or taking a leave of absence. Major
changes to employee work schedules and work disruptions can affect income and job
security. Those who do leave the workforce to care for an older disabled family
member have less opportunity to save or accrue benefits over their lifetime, which
may leave them economically vulnerable in retirement.
Workplace accommodations that allow employees to take unpaid leave for the
purposes of assisting with the long-term care needs of older relatives can directly
assist caregivers. Requiring employers to provide paid time off to their employees
to care for the medical needs of certain family members may assist in alleviating
some of the financial burden associated with caring for an older family member.
Federal policies that support flexible workplace accommodations may prevent
individuals from leaving the workforce altogether. Publicly funded programs that
allow payment of family caregivers through consumer-directed service delivery
models may provide caregivers with some income security.
Tax Credits
As previously mentioned, for many family caregivers, providing assistance to
a frail older individual can impose a substantial financial burden. Targeted tax relief
to caregivers could offset some of the direct expenses associated with caregiving,
including transportation for long-distance caregivers, purchase of assistive devices
and technology (i.e., grab bars, bed rails, emergency response systems) or home
modifications (i.e., wheel chair ramps, shower stalls) that can assist with the delivery
of personal care, dietary supplements for the care recipient, adult day health care, and
other medical or health-related services and products.
Additional tax relief measures that would directly assist families caring for a
disabled older individual include a targeted tax credit to caregivers. Other tax
policies that would directly assist family caregivers would expand on current tax
relief measures by broadening the taxpayer population eligible for these benefits. For
example, expanding the dependent definition under the DCTC to include disabled
83 Lynn Friss Feinberg et al., “Ahead of the Curve: Emerging Trends and Practices in Family
Caregiver Support,”AARP Public Policy Institute (Washington, DC, March 2006).

---

CRS-31
older relatives who do not live with the taxpayer may include additional eligible
taxpayers. Other policy proposals have included expanding the definition of
dependent care expenses to include eldercare-related expenses and services.

---

a
ailable on
ade av
. (I)
pe
ices
be m
erv
ay
nd Sco
d m
ore s
d ch
tate an
enefit(s) a
s
. (D)
. (D)
er an
by
ak
ices
ices
ary
em
ice(s)/B
erv
erv
m
tate.
o
s
erv
, h
S
fered v
asis.
by
erral s
erral s
of
e b
ices
ary
d ref
d ref
id
ices
erv
an
an
erv
fered v
-statew
of
ation
ation
rce s
an
al care s
rm
rm
u
th
on
ices
fo
fo
eso
ers
In
In
R
less-
P
Serv
es Offering Direct and Indirect
ices, and Scope of Benefit
to
-
tal
n
ith
eted
lish
en
less
tio
ral
g
w
(i.e.,
m
ard
er,
s.
32
, Serv
e.
ru
En
ility
ev
n
erly
ith
ag
in
ib
g
ited
s w
y
s reg
lar atten
in
latio
u
CRS-
e eld
abilities
n
f an
eed
lim
. How
al elig
th
dis
are to be targ
n
erso
articu
ith
ices
reg
e.
d
ith
r p
ers o
ices
p
se resid
ctio
erv
ag
w
iv
care n
ith
o
se w
n
y
/o
ices to
d
erv
o
u
, w
tes an
an
-term
t s
s, th
th
n
as f
ore s
lation
careg
g
d
of
eed
ill, an
d
n
ers.
ch
t, bu
, an
d ch
ers
rce serv
lo
iv
erso
ic n
n
ers: Eligibility
u
eral statu
ibility
iv
m
al popu
tally
ith
s tes
o
er p
es, su
ed
en
n
er, an
ld
ean
ak
f
Elig
et reso
ilities), an
elin
als w
eir careg
o
alizatio
ith
d careg
u
n
id
r eco
u
em
isab
id
th
rity
d
o
tio
m
t w
o
st targ
e addition
ilities, m
iv
in
u
d
ice g
tal d
, an
cial o
stitu
t on
sisten
isab
en
e, m
n
f in
.
d older, an
m
ility
m
serv
p
e all in
d older. No m
o
cy
co
al care, h
lish
e co
. Federal Programs and Initiativ
sical d
isab
on
y
elo
reatest so
-in
risk
tee states m
d at leas
st b
h
ev
serv
r d
g
w
ficien
u
ed 60 an
an
p
/d
ran
ed 60 an
ro
estab
n
e o
ith
lo
se at-
r pers
g
ith
o
p
ay
o
es m
. 89-73)
s ag
al is to
ith
g
atio
o
s ag
se w
in
on
lts w
eir ag
on
o
elin
se w
itially
abilities
u
e g
h
th
o
eak
id
Benefits to Caregiv
ers
f th
ers
u
P
In
dis
ad
retard
T
o
P
to
th
areas, th
sp
States m
criteria f
g
ppendix A
-
A
e
ity
tiv
n
Act (OAA, P.L
ility
e
mmu
iv
/Initia
ters
ercare
ice
o
m
ericans
en
Disab
C
d
ra
d
n
pport
g
u
al Eld
n
an
rce C
- a
g
u
ices
Pro
cator Serv
in
me
ed S
o
g
eso
DRCs)
o
Older Am
Natio
L
A
R
(A
H
Bas
Serv

---

,
ip.
ps
sh
rou
ion
. (D)
ion
pan
pan
pport g
ices
u
, s
erv
d com
g
d com
pe
tal s
, an
selin
en
n
nd Sco
care, an
pplem
u
.
sportation
ce; cou
, s
tates
, tran
ices
enefit(s) a
sistan
al care, day
erv
tee s
ices
s as
on
. (I)
ran
erv
g
ice(s)/B
tate.
ices
s
, pers
by
ore s
erv
erv
S
pite care s
by
ary
, ch
erral; acces
ealth
er s
; res
ary
g
e h
pite care. (D)
oth
ices
d ref
m
in
o
g
fered, v
erv
an
on
fered v
de res
de h
of
er s
of
, am
, if
ation
er train
clu
clu
ak
iv
rm
ices
in
in
ices
ices
ite care. (D)
em
fo
esp
In
careg
Serv
May
May
serv
Serv
R
Hom
(I)
e
.
.
d
ith
eas
cial
o
cy
p
.
e
eek
se
,
e,
elo
an
o
e w
d
t s
m
eas
s dis
of
rces
ility
33
th
os
co
k
ficien
ev
ib
d
er’
ro
d
ou
s dis
reach
rs a w
reates
-in
ris
p
to
u
o
to th
eim
g
w
g
n
er’
to-
d res
e elig
CRS-
lo
e at-
in
m
ers
ilities); an
lzh
ith
os
an
eim
ard-
iv
co
ilities, an
A
ith
t 15 h
e w
eak
h
isab
, th
lzh
ith
os
iscretio
se w
-sp
eeds
A
isab
o
e d
s on
eet in
d
ere d
s w
lish
ith
cu
th
g
av
eir n
o
m
e at leas
r.
ith
on
s w
d
u
sev
to
ral areas
. 78-410)
a f
erv
o
.
eted to th
n
En
on
h
d
lts w
n
d older; careg
ith
ru
tio
tees h
ic to th
ith
er an
u
u
w
in
ited
ld
o
ibility
g
S, P.L
ran
e.
eb
ren
ecif
.
lim
r o
p
et pers
tia), w
o
lts, ad
m
Elig
idin
eas
u
o
ed 60 an
ild
lar atten
ith
en
0
$2.65 an
ch
ce to older pers
rders
e 6
st be able to s
g
e res
e dis
d of
so
are to be targ
se w
(ADDG
at are s
u
er ad
are h
ers ag
in
os
o
th
ld
o
d
articu
e ag
m
h
iv
sistan
di
ices
p
th
s th
ded to targ
ith
tipen
clu
d
as
ical
ith
s, th
criteria; State g
ten
(i.e., dem
st b
g
erv
ram
s w
u
teers
n
rail o
og
on
. 93-113)
t s
, w
, an
e a s
n
to States
ility
on
esses w
idin
rol
ib
to: careg
eed
prog
orders
eu
t, bu
s are in
teers m
. Volu
ts are f
en
ilities (in
rants
d
n
n
ts
receiv
al illn
iv
prov
ic n
ts
ien
s tes
alizatio
u
n
ed pers
lu
en
in
g
isab
ed n
m
older pers
f
ers
o
at
o
eral elig
stration
erv
iv
ean
n
tio
rity
r v
ed
ram
irem
ere d
o
on
term
f
ers
io
riority
d rel
tration G
d
r eco
in
stitu
rog
d related dis
n
articipan
ith
P
sev
careg
an
No m
o
m
in
No
dem
P
an
u
Sen
requ
P
Care recip
w
ons
e
tiv
e Dem
)
n
P
eas
S
)
/Initia
ily
pport
C
Dis
anio
P
m
u
p
C
m
ra
(NF
er’s
(S
g
al Fam
er S
tic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA, P.L
n
iv
ram
es
r Co
ram
Pro
areg
rog
DDGS
rog
Natio
C
P
Alzheim
A
Dom
Senio
P

---

ite
iciary
e
ef
ide
m
lt day
o
resp
d
, h
ben
, adu
, an
-statew
by
ices
ices
n
an
ary
pe
erv
erv
v
s-th
t s
alth
ilitatio
ay
ore s
en
ab
e m
a les
nd Sco
, ch
em
e he
, h
. (I)
ag
ag
m
ices
an
eals
r/ho
ealth
h
erv
ailable on
ake
ay
ice pack
enefit(s) a
er s
old m
ate m
em
lt d
ak
seh
reg
u
ade av
g
m
pite care. (D)
u
em
o
ice(s)/B
m
tate.
, ho
tate. Serv
o
d h
be m
d con
s
ent
s
erv
, h
ay
S
, an
by
m
al care, ad
by
erral, res
ge
n
m
ices
. (I)
ices
ary
ary
ered an
ers
ices
d ref
erv
ana
erso
erv
eliv
erv
an
oth
ce s
fered v
fered v
e-d
ase m
g
. S
of
ices, p
on
of
ation
an
al care s
m
o
es c
rm
on
ten
ices
ite care. (D)
ices
lation
fo
e serv
ers
ain
esp
clud
asis.
In
P
m
care, h
Serv
R
In
aid
care, am
Serv
popu
b
als
u
n
id
to
34
w
iv
en
e
d
iv
es
eir o
in
is g
e th
CRS-
to
n
set th
ted
tio
u
to
receiv
n
istrib
lar atten
o can
e d
h
iscretio
b
w
e d
to
articu
als
ed
; p
ibility
av
d
idu
ten
eed
div
Elig
in
cial n
s.
al
ber of
ices are in
idu
tate.
v
m
criteria; states h
ic or so
s
u
m
di
o
n
by
e n
ility
t serv
u
ary
. 97-35)
ib
der i
. 89-97)
it th
e ol
lim
s test, b
ay
.
eral elig
reatest econ
com
m
ed
ean
g
e criteria v
f
m
-in
ices
ith
w
es
h
No
criteria.
No
w
lo
T
States
serv
e
tiv
d
lock
B
e an
ased
/Initia
m
ices
G)
-B
ra
X of the Social Security Act (P.L
ity
g
n
u
t (SSB
m
ices
Pro
m
itle XX of the Social Security Act (P.L
itle XI
T
Social Serv
Gran
T
Medicaid Hom
Co
Serv

---

r
a
t
o
re
o
aren
es). (D)
r p
adopted,
t care
e care of
ly
er, or
t-related
, o
d $6,000 f
t tax
en
den
ild
ew
ploy
m
en
I)
, n
titled to m
, an
m
em
al
y
. (
ploy
lo
pe
ear to tak
se, ch
idu
p
ate
u
born
an
v
o
ew
di
ied depen
x r
em
ees are en
, by
n
ied em
i
alif
d
l ta
nd Sco
e per y
r a sp
r a n
g
o
o
ploy
alif
in
ina
t.
r qu
es an
o
tate law
ify
arg
en
qu
aid leav
al
p
care f
er s
e tax
sed f
n
d
e of
m
enefit(s) a
efit. Em
, to
n
reem
e qu
s. (D)
s u
co
er’s m
n
g
tag
al
g
, or to care f
ay
ben
r on
in
in
itio
ng a
o
idu
xp
d
m
u
v
ice(s)/B
n
fered u
ta
dition
ild. (D)
di
im
earn
of
aini
a percen
n
lies to
erv
protected, u
co
in
i
p
the
S
its
arg
g
.
.
n
.
ob-
con
ef
$3,000 f
in
n
ap
n
o
n
j
ealth
ster ch
e b
o
n
o
lated as
ify
isio
sio
isio
end
isio
s of
ealth
al h
tees a m
al
v
v
v
n
e ben
s h
ep
llectiv
ited t
ro
clu
ro
ro
eek
o
to $5,000 of
im
re qu
p
p
p
p
erso
aran
c
o
u
eriou
placed f
u
s p
ly
g
es
vings d
u
ses, l
d
ses (ex
a s
A
ew
rable leav
o
ugh a
credit calcu
eral tax
en
eral tax
eral tax
ith
ro
clu
ax
pen
o or m
p
ax sa
Up to 12 w
serio
w
or n
FML
fav
th
T
ex
tw
Fed
Ex
ex
Fed
T
Fed
er
ear,
e 12
ss
ees
ize,
d a
s
th
pay
35
dar y
t is le
ploy
s of
e), an
e) in
e tax
es
tiv
se or
se or
th
e tha
CRS-
pou
pou
e calen
t if
m
t 50 em
ardl
secu
e tim
th
o
ed s
ed s
g
den
con
rin
l inc
er, reg
at leas
sabl
sabl
oy
aid leav
p
e.
nnua
ith
pl
sarily
n
pport du
ss a
er w
eces
leav
or a di
or a di
u
o
ic em
A
ild
ild
e as a depen
bl
’s s
gr
ibility
ploy
ot n
paid or u
ch
ch
a
g
g
g
on
s (n
ve
relativ
Elig
r a pu
in
in
th
in
d
eir FML
g
ate em
o
n
ify
ify
o
in
st ha
clu
th
al
al
y
e pers
u
th
qu
qu
alif
m
of
r a priv
t 12 m
rs (ex
tart of
ith
ith
o
iles, or f
u
alf
tive
f
o
e s
w
w
a qu
.103-3)
g
h
ela
in
75 m
th
g
ers
ers
an
rk
in
r at leas
ay
ay
ing r
, P.L
o
o
p
p
claim
2007.
n
A
ith
1,250 h
re th
ax
ax
o
L
w
ed f
of
t.
t.
alify
u
ees
ed w
rk
ed t
ed t
o
m
u
ers can
s precedin
q
oy
oy
den
oy
den
ay
ided m
ploy
th
$3,400 i
pl
o w
im
n
pl
pl
p
the
m
h
in
o
ax
d
an
E
em
w
m
m
Em
depen
Em
depen
T
prov
an
th
eave Act (FM
e
1
L
2
tiv

ical
ax
. 151
ed
s
, Sec.
ram
g
r
/Initia
o
M
are T
C)
are
ro
m
d
sion
t C
t C
s f
ts, Secs
ra
CT
g
an
D
den
den
), Sec. 129
P
den
ily
A
it (
ption
Pro
Provi
A
x
a
ed
ssistance P
em
d 152.
Fam
FML
T
Depen
Cr
Depen
A
(DC
Ex
Depen
an

---

ers.
e
iv
rable tax
o
er, th
av
pay
efit careg
re f
en
o
e tax
ceed 7.5% of
b
pe
d m
r th
ex
o
ey
irectly
s an
t th
d
nd Sco
ses f
in
tatu
ten
d
s
pen
g
an
e ex
ilin
enefit(s) a
le f
irectly
g
edical ex
ts to th
d
in
ay
e s
ed m
den
GI). (I)
ice(s)/B
th
rs
at m
h
erv
an
bu
e (A
t
S
.
.
n
n
s th
reim
com
ices
isio
n
isio
eou
v
se, or depen
r u
s In
v
tag
ro
o
ro
p
pou
p
an
s f
. (I)
s s
ets
er’
ction
sted Gros
eral tax
; (D/I) = Serv
pay
ju
eral tax
d
ers
More adv
brack
Fed
Dedu
tax
A
Fed
iv
t
a
it careg
ing up
t paren
in
ef
36
ep
es
ead of
den
ben
f ke
ear.
t liv
CRS-
st o
e y
rable h
o
directly
o
c
th
e paren
in
av
alf
as a depen
h
th
ay
re f
lf the
o h
h
if
o
an
ha
en
at m
n
e m
re th
er w
th
o
s ev
th
pay
re tha
r m
tatu
s.
ices
ibility
o
o
s
f
g
claim
m
ction
Elig
aid
em
ilin
p
th
arried tax
y
ith
m
; (I) = Serv
n
old f
eir dedu
ers
arried can
w
u
seh
m
ed
iv
an
u
n
o
tus if the
liv
its
h
.
ize th
n
ld
it careg
o are u
ho
o item
h
erso
ead of
ef
p
le perm
use
h
w
filing sta
g
e h
w
in
ben
ers
ld
y
th
ho
ers
ay
ho
e;
ay
p
m
alif
ecial ru
rent
o
u
p
p
ax
use
ND
s
iffe
ax
directly
T
ho
a h
A
a q
A
to claim
d
T
ay
e
at m
tiv
th
old
ices
/Initia
seh
m
ed Medical
rs
ra
g
Hou
bu
ses, Sec. 213
s, Sec. 2(b)
(D) = Serv
Pro
reim
pen
Head of
Statu
Un
Ex
Note:

---