Family carers in the Finnish welfare state : challenges and coping strategies

1. Carers and Work-CareReconciliation International ConferenceUniversity House, University of Leeds Tuesday 13th August 2013 Familycarers in the Finnishwelfarestate: challenges and copingstrategies Outi Jolanki, PhD Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy University of Jyväskylä outi.jolanki@jyu.fi

2. The Finnishwelfarestate • Rathergenerouspubliclyfinancedservices, directed to all and usedbyall social groups, no means-testing • Helpsbothpeopleneedingcare and theirfamilymembers/carers • The responsibility to providecarerests with highlyindependentlocalstate (municipalities)

3. The general idea of familycare in the Finnishsociety • No legalresponsibility for family to care for adults • Mostpeoplesupport the idea thatfamilymembersshould help theirolderrelatives, butexpectstate to participate and providecareservices for olderpeople • According to surveys no clearpreference for the formalcareorfamilycare • Duringlastfewyearsfamilycare and need to supportfamilycarers of olderpeoplehasbeenbrought to the political agenda and hasbeen a common topic in publicdiscussions (in media)

4. Services: differenttrends for olderpeople and people with disabilities • General social and healthcareservicesavailable for all – helpsbothpeople with careneeds and the carers • Services for disabledpeople • De-familising/normalisingaim – to increase the independence of users and familymembers • Publiclyfundedservices: housingservices (cleaning, group-homes), transportation, interpreters, technicalassistance, reimbursement for homrenovation • Personal Assistancescheme(employer/employee-relation, not a familymember) • Services for olderpeople • Aim to supportfamilycarers (re-familisation) • Decliningresources and coverage of home careservices – targeted for those with extensivecareneeds – othersneed to rely on self-help, familyorprivateserviceproviders • increase in privateserviceprovidersf.ex. providingcleaningservices, home maintenance, personalcare etc. • Challenge: largeregionalvariationin coverage and quality of servicesdue to LAsdiscretion– concernsallserviceusers

5. Payments for familycare • CareAllowance (1982- ) to care for person whoneeds help due to illness, oldageordisability (2011, 39.000) • LA discretion, budgetfunding, taxableincome • 364 – 728€/month • highestamount for 24/7 caresituation, notenough to compensatesalary, mainlyusedbyolderspouses(bothretired) • Since 2005 the right to have 3 daysoff/month – respitecareorganisedby the municipality (daycentre/residentialcarefacility) • Constantlack of goodqualityrespitecareplaces and carerscoming to home • 2011 Support for InformalCarers Act (revised) LAsmaycontract with ’respitecare’ worker to replacefamilycarer • SpecialCareAllowance (duringtreatment of a sickchild, based on the parent’sincome) • DisabilityAllowance (to parents of under 16-year-old disabledchild to supportcare at home, 92/215/417€/month) • Job AlternationLeaveBenefit (nottargeted for the carers, butusedbysomecarers to havetimeofffromwork) • 70-80% of unemploymentbenefit, 90-365 days • Only for those with long workhistories (oftenusedbywomenworking in public social and healthcaresector)

6. Employmentrelatedpolicies • Hardlyanyrights for carers • Whencaring for an adult: flexibleorreducedhours and timeoff in the case of emergenciesneed to benegotiated with the employer, no absolutelegalrights • Verydifferentfromemploymentpolicies for parents of smallchildren, whoserightsprotectedmorestronglybylaw • Paidparentalleave, paidtemporaryleave for caring for a sickchild, right to return to work (same) afterparentalleave • Temporarycareleave to care for someonewhoneeds help due to illness, disabilityoroldage • EmployersContracts Act 2001, Amendment 2011 • Amendmentstrengthened the carersrights i.e. the empolyerneeds to provide an explanationif the leave is denied, employeehas the right to return to sameworkduties • Unpaid, suggested for short-timeabsenceonly (durationnotdefined) • Employersdiscretion • Politicaldiscussion in 2007 of the lawamendmentwasdirectlylinked to the need to supportfamilycarers of olderpeople

7. Summary • In Finland: • Duringrecentyearsfamilycare and the need to supportfamilycarers of olderpeoplehavereceivedincreasingattention in publicdiscussions (in media) and in politicaldecision-making & national and regionalstrategies – family ’rediscovered’ • New govermentbudgetproposal (August 2013): 10 millioneuros to developfamilycarers’ supportservices • Workingcarersarestillquiteinvisible and havefewrights; carersallowanceusedmostlybyretiredpeople • Copingstrategies: use of public home careservices, part-timework (ratherrare in Finland) orearlyretirement • Recentlymodestattention to familycare as a work-lifeissue (mentionedbriefly in national strategypapers etc.) • Familycare is notseen as an genderissue • Carers and thosewhoneedcareexpectgoodqualitypublicservices and not to be ’leftalone’ by the state; yetfamilycareseems to beseen as an alternative for formalcareservices in Finland

8. Similarities and differencesbetweenSweden and Finland Similarities: Carersexpect to receive help frompubliccareservices Rathergenerous social and healthcareservices Disabilitybenefits and servicesmoregenerousthanservicesavailable for olderpeople In daily life carersfacesimilarchallenges and problemsthancarerseverywhere - ambiguoussituations: will to carebutcombiningcare and workexperienced as stressful, potentiallyreducework-lifeparticipation, canhavenegativeeffect on carer’shealth and social life, carerscall for flexibleworkplacearrangementsand tailoredindividualservices

9. Differences… • Differences: • Swedenhasmoregenerous, tailored and individualisedpubliccareservices and benefitsthanFinland • In particurlarlypubliclyfundeddisabilityservices and benefits • The role of the familyseenmorevoluntary in Sweden(bycitizens and byauthorities) whereasin Finland familycarersmorestrongly at the ’politicial agenda’ and morestronglytied with the formalcaresystem (in practice and in politicalspeech) • In Finland new worklawamendment (careleave) to supportcaringworkers • Finnishpeoplefavour ’sharedcare’ i.e. sharingresponsibilitybetweenfamily and formalcareservicesslightlymorethanSwedishpeoplewhoemphasisemorestrongly the need to havegoodqualityformalservices as a primarysource of support?