Understanding and Supporting Working Caregivers: Typologies, Innovations, and Implications for Practice and Policy

Background and Purpose: As the U.S. population ages, caregiving responsibilities increasingly fall on older workers, creating overlapping personal and professional demands. However, caregiving roles are not uniform. This study aimed to (1) identify distinct caregiving typologies among workers aged 50+ and (2) examine how workplace innovation can meet the diverse needs of working caregivers. Research questions included: What typologies of working caregivers exist in the U.S.? What workplace supports are effective in addressing these needs?

Methods: This mixed-method study combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine the experiences of older working caregivers and promising workplace responses. The first component used 2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data to identify caregiving typologies through a two-step cluster analysis of 5,162 employed adults aged 50+. Indicators included care for spouses, parents, grandchildren, and financial transfers. Sociodemographic and well-being characteristics (e.g., stress, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction) were compared across typologies. To complement these findings and illustrate an organizational response to caregiving needs, the second component involved a case study of the Concentric Program at Critical Mass—a global agency that implemented a paid eldercare leave benefit. The case included document review, qualitative interviews, and internal program data to assess program design, uptake, and employee impact.

Results: Six caregiving typologies were identified: (1) Non-Caregivers, (2) Grandchild Caregivers, (3) Spousal Caregivers, (4) Parental Caregivers, (5) Financial Support to Parents, and (6) Financial Support to Children. Spousal caregivers exhibited the highest stress and poorest health outcomes, while parental and financial caregivers reported better well-being. The Concentric Program provided 40 hours of paid eldercare leave, a simplified application process, and educational seminars. Within a year, 10% of employees used the benefit, primarily in small increments. Employees reported enhanced emotional well-being, reduced work-life conflict, and stronger organizational loyalty.

Conclusions and Implications: This paper offers two key insights: (1) Caregiving among older workers is heterogeneous, and distinct typologies have varying needs and outcomes; (2) Workplace programs like Concentric can alleviate caregiving-related strain and improve employee engagement. Together, these findings call for social workers to advocate for caregiving-supportive policies, develop flexible workplace interventions, and promote cultural shifts that recognize caregiving as central to advancing long, healthy and productive lives. Future research should examine the scalability of workplace innovations and explore how caregiving intersects with race, gender, and class in the labor force.