Impact of COVID-19 on UW System Caregivers: 2021 Survey Results

Dr. Alicia Johnson, UW-Oshkosh

Dr. James Krueger, UW-Oshkosh

Dr. Stephanie Rytilahti, UW-Madison

Dr. Jennifer Schuttlefield Christus, UW-Oshkosh

Dr. Erica Weisgram, UW-Stevens Point

Systemwide Caregiving Task Force, 2021

Development of the survey, survey distribution, editing, and recommendation development was a collaborative effort provided by members of the system wide caregiving task force. A full list of task force members can be found here.

Executive Summary

While caregiving has always posed challenges, specifically for women and people of color in terms of career growth and progression, COVID-19 exploded and exposed many of these inequities in new and revealing ways. The emergency policies provided by employers to address this crisis have prompted new calls for permanent flexible work options, family-friendly policies, and institutional support to offset the inequities related to career growth, retention and advancement for women, people of color, people with disabilities, and other multiply marginalized groups.^[1] The Systemwide Caregiving Survey, conducted by an independent task force, set out to contextualize these same issues within the UW System and identify the areas of need and future support. The data from the systemwide survey included quantitative and qualitative analysis from 995 participants across UW System. A full break-down of demographics, including information on employee classification level and campus affiliation, is provided in Table 1.

The findings from this survey are consistent with other national and campus-specific analyses revealing the disparate impact of COVID-19 on caregivers within higher education.^[2] Independent surveys conducted by UW-LaCrosse, UW-Milwaukee, and UW-Madison reveal very similar trends for caregivers as reported herein.^[3] In comparing the results across all UW System-based data sets, the systemwide survey is consistent with the other UW System campus surveys in highlighting three critical areas:

The negative mental health impacts and negative work impacts experienced by caregivers, particularly women and people of color
A strong desire for COVID-related flexibilities and permanent job flexibilities
A call for institutional supports to offset the disrupted career progression experienced from COVID-19, with a particular emphasis on metrics relating to equity, inclusivity, and diversity

The summary below highlights the six research questions the caregiving task force sought to address.

Section 1: Who Is Most Impacted by an Increase in Caregiving Hours?

Caregivers of children and caregivers of both children and adults reported increased hours of caregiving during the 20-21 academic year with significant gendered effects. In the fall of 2020, more women (20%) reported an increase of eleven hours or more in caregiving work compared to men (11.4%). In the spring of 2020, more women (30%) again reported an increase of eleven or more hours in caregiving work than men (12.3%), reflecting how women took on more of the initial caregiving burden during the pandemic. BIPOC women were the most likely to report that caregiving hours “greatly increased” overall (Table 3). These findings reflect the overlapping raced and gendered impacts of increased caregiving hours.

Caregiving increases impacted all employee classification levels. Instructional staff were more likely (statistically significant, p<.01) to agree that their caregiving responsibilities have increased, that these duties have had a negative impact on their work time and quality, that their workload has significantly increased, and that their work routine has changed “a lot.”^[4] Instructional staff were also more likely to strongly agree with higher levels of caregiving stress (statistically significant, p<.01) than non-instructional staff, though the means of both groups indicate an increase in stress related to balancing caregiving and work relative to before the pandemic (Table 4).

Section 2 & 4: How Did COVID-19 Affect Work Experiences for Caregivers and Career Progression?

This increase in caregiving hours directly impacted the quality and quantity of work for many caregivers. Table 2 outlines the types of caregiving disruptions experienced by participants. While all survey respondents reported negative impacts on work related to COVID, all categories of caregivers reported more negative impact on work time than non-caregivers, with caregivers of children perceiving a greater negative impact than other groups. As reflected in other national studies, UW System caregivers also reported more disruptions in their workday than non-caregivers, and caregivers of children once again reported the most interruptions. In open-ended responses, participants cited the following effects of caregiving on work performance during the pandemic:

Increased stress, fatigue, and reduced self-care
Increased distractions at home
Missed work hours or reduced work hours
Changed hours (largely due to working nights and weekends)
Unfavorable performance reviews or negative feedback from a supervisor on work performance
An unplanned job change to offset caregiving demands or early retirement
Missed promotions or professional development opportunities (turned down or didn’t apply for a new job or promotion, interrupted publishing or research, missed training, EDI opportunities, and networking events).

Section 3: How has COVID Impacted Job Satisfaction?

Over half of the participants indicated that their job satisfaction has decreased either slightly or significantly. A significantly higher number of men (57%) reported their job satisfaction has decreased compared to women (50%). While there were no statistical differences observed when comparing caregiving status (i.e., caregiver of children, caregiver of adults, non-caregiver, etc.), respondents with caregiving support from a partner felt a greater drop in job satisfaction (54%) than caregivers with sole responsibility (33%).

When accounting for rank, instructional employees reported a statically larger decrease in job satisfaction than academic or university staff. 74% of tenured faculty, 65% of tenure-track, and 62% of IAS reported a drop in job satisfaction compared to 41% of academic/university staff. Reported increases in caregiving disruptions overlapped with a change in work routine and workload for many employees. Open-ended responses in this section detail the stress and fatigue experienced by employees as changing course modalities and increased workloads overlapped with what many perceived as a lack of institutional support to offset these demands. As noted, for many caregivers, work responsibilities and hours became higher as caregiving hours also simultaneously increased. Importantly, many of these challenges track with a decrease in overall job satisfaction, a variable which can also lead to declines in retention.

Section 5: How does caregiving impact mental health?

Caregivers also reported steeper declines in mental health than surveyed non-caregivers (Table 6). Significantly, BIPOC women reported the most negative impacts from balancing care and work. BIPOC respondents were also the most likely to define the negative impact as “a lot.” Importantly, this shows that BIPOC respondents reported mental health experiences due to COVID that were more negative, on average, than those of white respondents, a finding which once again can have implications for both career growth and retention (Table 3).

Section 6: Next steps and institutional strategies for support

The final section of the survey offered a chance for caregivers to rank categories of useful institutional support. Respondents indicated the following categories as the most useful areas for support:

Flexible scheduling and work from home options (75.4%)
Caregiving responsibilities taken into account in performance evaluations (49.8%)
Virtual meetings and email alternatives to meetings (63%, 47.6% respectively)
Clear communication on leave policies and flexibility (44.7%)
Training for supervisors on how to support caregivers (34.4%)

This is consistent with open-ended responses in the same area which highlighted the following sources of support as crucial to offsetting the challenges of caregiving:

Supportive and empathetic supervisors
Flexible work schedules
The ability to work remotely
Supportive and understanding co-workers
Emergency furlough leave separate from from PTO and FMLA
Flexible course modalities
Virtual meetings

Recommendations Based on Survey Responses

These findings have significant implications for how institutions can move forward in offsetting some of the inequities relating to COVID-19. Below are the recommendations for moving forward derived from survey data. Detailed recommendations can be found here.

Maintain policies and practices of flexibility for the 2021-22 academic year. Many employees will continue to experience disruptions related to COVID throughout the academic year.
Increase workplace flexibility as a permanent policy, providing ongoing opportunities for remote work and virtual meetings
Develop policies across UW System that actively support multiple forms of caregiving, broadly defined
Increase the overall caregiving resources available on each campus
Direct and support leaders, supervisors, review committees and other personnel decision-making bodies to review and enhance policies and processes related to annual planning, performance, and retention evaluations to reflect the context of the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2020-2021 and 2021-22 academic years
Provide training for department chairs and supervisors underscoring ongoing strains of caregiving, paying particular attention to single parents, people of color, student caregivers, and others at the intersections of marginalized identities
Create and support innovative ways to assist faculty and staff in regaining some of the lost ground on research and professional development due to impacts of the pandemic, including caregiving
Integrate caregiving into campus EDI work and develop a solution for assessing the long-term impacts of career progression for caregivers (annual review of all tenure and evaluation files), and create long-term solutions to retain underrepresented employees differentially impacted by COVID-19 and caregiving responsibilities
Use this moment to rethink and expand caring strategies across the University

Introduction

In August of 2020, the directors of the Women and Science Program and the Women’s and Gender Studies Consortium worked with leaders across the UW System to convene an independent, systemwide task force to advance research on the gendered impacts of COVID-19 on caregivers in higher education and develop ways to sustain and support caregivers across the UW System. Throughout the fall and spring semester, task force members worked closely with many campuses across the UW System to develop communications, implement guidelines, and coordinate resources to support caregivers at all employee classification levels. In addition to defining caregiving as a gender equity issue, the systemwide task force contributed to a broader national conversation underscoring how caregiving is an intersectional issue with varying impacts for people of all identity positions and employee classification levels within higher ed. The task force also defined caregiving broadly to include a range of scenarios including eldercare, virtual schooling for children of all ages, support for family members and children with disabilities, and mental health concerns. Ultimately, the task force has focused on determining key issues and concerns of faculty, staff, and student caregivers across UW System, paying particular attention to the impacts on caregivers at the center of multiple marginalized identities as well as impacts of gender equity and COVID-19 on career progression.

Our mission is to provide resources and collective policy recommendations to campus leadership across the UW System as part of a collaborative process designed to streamline and expedite the support available to caregivers. Importantly, this emphasis also supports larger, equity-focused work for caregivers and non-caregivers alike, and dovetails with other efforts to combat institutional barriers that adversely impacted the career progression and work-life balance for women, people of color, queer and trans people, disabled people, and others.^[5] Importantly, the survey also exposes larger cultural problems relating to the workloads of teaching staff, academic staff and frontline university employees which warrant deeper explorations.^[6] Many of the open-ended responses referenced escalating workloads, varying policies of flexibility across campus, and a general feeling of fatigue pre-dating COVID. While COVID magnified and exacerbated these issues for caregivers specifically, our analysis and recommendations support the equity-focused mission for all groups across the UW System and specifically support an emphasis on exploring avenues for reducing these barriers in the future.

Composition of the Task Force

The task force consists of faculty, instructors, academic staff, and university staff, and students from all thirteen UW System campuses. The task force also includes administrators and human resource liaisons. Task force members collaborate with administrators, shared governance groups, student organizations, human resource teams, and other units, although these partnerships vary from campus to campus. The task force convenes monthly to share resources, develop recommendations, and engage in strategic planning for future initiatives. Importantly, all task force members and the research team who assembled this report did so with voluntary labor (often on top of existing caregiving responsibilities and increased workloads). More institutional support and monetary resources are needed to explore the questions and concerns raised by our analysis.

Survey Distribution

In February of 2021, the caregiving task force worked with administrators and shared governance groups across the UW System to distribute an online survey focused on documenting the impacts of COVID-19 on caregivers across UW System. Our survey included all UW System employee classification levels but did not include students. Survey distribution occurred from February 2021 – April 2021, and formally involved almost all UW System campuses. In some instances, participants accessed the survey through shared social media posts. The primary goal of the survey was data collection, both quantitative and qualitative, to assess the professional and mental health impacts of COVID-19 for caregivers and to identify solutions for offsetting the resulting inequities. The data collected was aggregated for all UW System and will be released to the administrative units on each campus. The survey addressed questions relating to workload, caregiving responsibilities, mental health, and professional advancement. Key variables were also examined by gender, race/ethnicity, caregiving status, and employee type.

How Can Campuses Use this Data?

While this survey provides an important reading of the career impacts of COVID based on a survey sample across the UW System, more work is needed on each campus to effectively move forward the recommendations provided by the task force (see below), including additional detailed studies on each campus, or distributed by UW System. Importantly, the data provides a baseline for exploring certain evidence-based approaches to remediating the immediate impacts of COVID but also exposes many questions requiring more comprehensive exploration and institutional research support:

How has COVID magnified many of the known institutional barriers facing women, people of color, queer and trans people, people with disabilities, and those of the intersections of multiple identities?
What short-term strategies for addressing these concerns (remote work, flexible meeting options, supervisor training, reallocation of resources) should become permanent workplace norms?
What separate and distinct approaches are needed to address the concerns of all employee classification levels (academic staff, university employees, instructional academic staff, graduate students, tenure-track and tenured-faculty)?
What can we learn from this moment to improve equity, inclusivity, and retention for all groups?
How will campus administrations and UWSA track how COVID impacted tenure delays and decisions for faculty and career progression for all other groups?
How will campus administrations and UWSA track post-COVID retention rates, paying particular attention to turnover in staff positions and underrepresented groups?
How can campuses take advantage of a shift to virtual work and enhanced digital environments to immediately improve the work-life balance for all employees?
What mental health support and resources need enhancements to support employees now and in the future?
What leadership changes are needed to effectively address caregiving and other equity issues arising from COVID?

Detailed Recommendations

Maintain policies and practices of flexibility for the 2021-22 academic year. Many employees will continue to experience disruptions related to COVID throughout the academic year. The following recommendations are based on quantitative and qualitative survey responses:

Increase flexibility and remote teaching and work options for those who request it—this includes options for hybrid workdays to manage increased caregiving loads, virtual meetings, and the virtual office hours
Provide clear communication and resources on emergency leave options for caregivers who need to care for someone who is ill and/or provide childcare due to quarantine requirements or COVID-related childcare disruptions
Offer a clear pathway to request a change in work modality that does not require filing an ADA request and includes an appeal process to minimize inconsistency across units and departments
Communicate transparent contingency plans for mitigating risks in labs, classrooms, and other settings if case levels reach more than 5% on campus^[7]
Provide clear communication and support for student caregivers who may also require remote and flexible learning options
Review telecommuting policy requests with the purpose of retaining current employees and the long-term work environment reputations of each university in system
We recommend that each campus clearly identify and communicate the pathways for all university job positions to discuss, report or appeal situations they perceive as inequitable or situations when the university’s commitment to supporting caregivers specifically, or diversity, equity and inclusion more broadly, is challenged

Increase workplace flexibility as a permanent policy, providing ongoing opportunities for remote work and virtual meetings. Offering multiple options for engaging with university functions will benefit caregivers and non-caregivers alike and will support a culture of accessibility for the differing needs of many employees and increases communication and efficiency between main and branch campuses. This will also become a critical equity and retention issue as staff, in particular, leave UW System for more flexible options. Include options for:

Flexible work hours and hybrid workdays
Virtual meetings
Online teaching modalities and virtual office hours
Shared job positions, FTE reductions, and job and/or workload reassignments
Develop models for balancing organizational needs while also fully supporting faculty and staff
Clearly and systematically communicate the policies and exceptions to all employees, chairs/supervisors and other leadership, as well as articulate the support mechanisms that exist for unexpected situations (e.g., emergency switch from in-person or hybrid to online instruction).
Support flexible arrangements and online teaching that do not require the use of sick leave, FMLA, ADA, or colleague coverage if the work can be completed remotely or with flexible hours. This will allow faculty and staff to successfully perform their jobs when extenuating circumstances beyond their control arise.

Develop policies across UW System that actively support multiple forms of caregiving, broadly defined

Adopt a universal policy of paid family leave disaggregated from PTO and sick leave (family leave includes parental leave after a birth, adoption or foster placement, caregiving for another family member and personal medical leave). This approach provides adequate paid leave while reserving sick leave for illness and medical emergencies like COVID-19.
Adopt and define clear leave and flexibility policies for all other forms of ongoing and emergency caregiving needs
Increase the amount of job-sharing and flexible positions or workload reassignments, allowing more opportunities for employees to flex up or down in hours as needed
Identify temporary leave options that do not require staff to exhaust sick leave and/or a plan to support them if they are forced to do so as a direct result of impacts from the pandemic
In all instances, inclusive definitions of family and caregiving should be used
In the absence of federal paid family leave, the University of Wisconsin System should advocate for the adoption of an effective and equitable state paid family leave program.^[8]

Increase the overall caregiving resources available on each campus

Whenever possible, provide on-site daycare options with priority given to employees who do not have the option for remote or flexible work options
Access to childcare should be affordable with a sliding scale and a range of options available (full-time, part-time, drop-in) to ensure services are accessible to students, staff, faculty, and all other employees
Provide caregiving subsidies for accredited off-site daycare, after school care, and adult services
Increase the amount and accessibility of lactation rooms and family rooms on each campus
Offer resources and support for eldercare (estate planning, end of life planning, assisted living facilities)
Offer resources and support for caregivers of children (tutoring through the School of Education, summer camps, and after school education)
Develop a “float” division for temporary coverage when a unit or department does not have the resources to support planned or emergency leave. Caregiving leave should not result in increased workloads for other co-workers or an implicit understanding that faculty will still engage in advising and service work while on paid or unpaid leave.

Direct and support leaders, supervisors, review committees and other personnel decision-making bodies to review and enhance policies and processes related to annual planning, performance, and retention evaluations to reflect the context of the COVID-19 pandemic for the 2021-21 and 2021-22 academic years (e.g., annual reviews, merit, promotion, tenure, post-tenure, renewal of contracts).

Create a plan to review and enhance these policies and processes to address the additional systemic inequities on a regular basis.
Encourage the inclusion of an optional COVID impact statement for retention and promotion reviews for faculty and staff, regardless of their employee category or rank
Adjust goals and align criteria in performance reviews to fit the pandemic situation, and do so for both faculty and staff, as well as provide guidance for review committees on what questions to consider for personnel reviews and the impact of COVID-19.
Faculty: See best practices for documenting the pandemic impacts from UMass, and example narrative guidelines from the Systemwide Caregiving Taskforce, Michigan State University.
Staff: See example from the Systemwide Caregiving Taskforce and also information on adjusting performance reviews from the Society for Human Resource Management.

Provide training for department chairs and supervisors underscoring ongoing strains of caregiving paying particular attention to single parents, people of color, student caregivers, and others at the intersections of marginalized identities

Integrate caregiving into EDI trainings, AAO work, and other initiatives focused on diversity and inclusivity
Training should include information on the inequities that resulted from COVID-19 (and other systemic inequities) and how they might have affected faculty and staff performance.
Include guidance on workplace flexibility–both how to support and manage caregiving considerations and how to manage and support remote and hybrid schedules.
Provide bias training to support supervisors in creating supportive work environments for caregivers with a particular emphasis on providing fair and equitable solutions for all.
Create clearly accessible tools such as webinars, web pages, tip sheets, and training to support these efforts.
Supervisors should ensure their employees are aware of work-life balance programs and support employees who choose to take advantage of such opportunities.
These efforts should overlap with campus wide efforts focused on equity, inclusivity, campus wellness and employee retention.

Create and support innovative ways to assist faculty and staff in regaining some of the lost ground on research and career progression due to impacts of the pandemic, including caregiving.

For faculty: Extension of start-up funds, reallocation of campus resources to support research and publishing opportunities interrupted by COVID, credit towards sabbatical, and course releases to support research interruptions. UW-L has successfully modeled this approach by creating COVID-disruption grants to support course releases and research funding.
Create an “emergency equity fund” which includes support for things like caregiving support, personnel for research, tools and materials for advancing research. See detailed example from Indiana University.
Include criteria on COVID-related need into Faculty Research Grants and/or have a year-end emergency round of FRG to support research impacted by the pandemic, with priorities to those whose research was directly affected by changes to the university (e.g., labs closed so research specimens were ruined), who gave time or resources to fighting the pandemic (e.g., gave supplies from lab to hospitals) and who had caregiving, illness or other extenuating circumstances.
For staff: Identify professional development opportunities such as supplemental training, mentoring opportunities, conferences, and workshops to offset missed professional milestones due to COVID.
Actively work with staff on career trajectory planning to develop support mechanisms for career development and growth within and beyond their current position.
Create a COVID-related emergency relief fund, including caregiving relief explicitly, to reimburse faculty and staff who have incurred additional and qualifying expenses related to caregiving, remote learning support, and technology needs directly as a direct result of the pandemic. See examples from other institutions here and also here.

Integrate caregiving into campus EDI work and develop a solution for assessing the long-term impacts of career progression for caregivers (annual review of all tenure and evaluation files), and create long-term solutions to retain underrepresented employees differentially impacted by COVID-19 and caregiving responsibilities

Distribute campus specific surveys to increase data on underrepresented, historically excluded groups, the impacts of COVID on career performance and trajectory, and the caregiving needs of employees at all classification levels.
Identify past, current and on-going equity outcomes on campus by EDI teams or campus governance groups to explore data and identify pre- and post-pandemic equity issues and track over time to see how these change with the pandemic. Continue the analysis on a bi-annual basis moving forward.
Develop systemwide metrics for assessing the work-life balance and family-friendly environment of each campus.
Design mechanisms for tracking tenure decisions and the retention rate of faculty and staff with an emphasis on caregiving as a critical metric for at least the next 3-5 years (this analysis could include turnover patterns, promotions, time in rank, salary, advising and service load, grant funding for caregivers in underrepresented groups).
Develop an ongoing advisory committee to the Chancellor and Provost to address caregiving concerns. Critically, this committee should represent all employee classifications levels with a particular emphasis on serving the needs of underrepresented groups.

Use this moment to rethink and expand caring strategies across the University. Each campus could build upon strategies used by peer institutions to develop long-term plans for supporting caregivers in a sustainable fashion. Importantly, caregiving is inseparable from other axes of social identity such as race, gender, sexuality, class, nationality, citizenship status, and disability. Efforts to reimagine sustainability, support, and flexibility for caregivers is a long overdue initiative which will have ripple effects for many other groups across the UW System.

***Recommendations 5, 7, and 8 are adapted with permission from the UW-L Caregiving task force which conducted their own survey during the 2020-21 academic year.

Summary of Survey Results

*Note: All Tables can be found in the Appendix.

Demographics. The survey consisted of 995 respondents from a number of UW System Institutions. Of those respondents, not all answered each question so specific numbers are provided for various intersecting demographic variables such as gender and race.

Gender: 971 participants responded overall with 745 participants identifying as women and 226 identifying as men. The analysis also includes 15 respondents who identify as nonbinary or preferred not to answer the gender question. Figure 1 (belwo) shows the overall breakdown by gender for respondents.

Figure 1. Caregiving survey respondents distribution of responses by gender identity, with the majority (76%) of respondents identifying as women (shown in blue), 23% identifying as men, and 2% identified as nonbinary or preferred not to answer.

Race and Ethnicity: 907 participants identified as White or European American and 56 participants identified as Latino/a/x or Hispanic, Asian or Asian American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African American, or as belonging to more than one race/ethnicity category. For consistency purposes, we used the same demographic categories as UW System Dashboard. Participant demographic distribution was very similar to the overall population of the UW System. In 2019, UW System employed over 41,000 individuals who were reported to be 85.1% White and 14.9% BIPOC.

The sample also included 20 who preferred not to answer the race question, and 15 who preferred not to answer the Latinx ethnicity question. These respondents are included when gender or race (respectively) are not a part of the analysis. A summary of the demographic information can be found in Table 1(see Appendix). It provides demographic information about our survey respondents, presented both as a count of the number of respondents in each identity group and as a percentage of all respondents. Reading across each row will sum to 100% of the sample, apart from errors introduced through rounding.

Identifying the gender breakdown of faculty and staff across the UW System was more difficult. While UW Dashboard does not breakdown information by gender, this information can generally be found on institutional websites. Based on information provided by the UW Madison 2020-2021 Data Digest from Academic Planning & Institutional Research and the Office of the Provost, UW–Madison has over 24,000 regular employees. Within this employment category, more than half of the employees (12,650 employees or 52%) are women. This trend is consistent with nationwide demographics. Data presented by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst ADVANCE team during the 2021 caregiving forum (retrieved from the Department of Education website) indicates that approximately half of all employees at the comprehensive institutions identify as women. Keeping the gendered impacts of the pandemic in mind, these figures reveal that approximately half of the employees across UW System are experiencing disproportionate impacts of the pandemic.

While no UW System campus tracks the number of caregivers specifically, demographic trends on each campus and the gendered dynamics of caregiving suggest that a large portion of employees on each campus will engage in some form of caregiving (or multiple forms) over the course of their employment.^[9]

Source: UW Madison Academic Planning and Institutional Research, 2020. University of Massachusetts-Amherst Presentation, Caregiving Forum, March 24, 2021.

Institutional Responses. The caregiving task force distributed the survey via a number of pathways across the UW System. While the goal was to obtain as many responses as possible from all UW System campuses, there was wide variation in the number of responses collected from each institution. UW- Madison, UW La-Crosse, and UW-Milwaukee released their own surveys thus little data was collected from those campuses. A distribution of responses per campus can be found in Figure 2 (below). In general, campuses with the highest response rates relied upon the endorsement of the survey from shared governance groups, unions, and/or campus administration for distribution and participation.

Figure 2. Distribution of responses from UW System Campuses

Caregiving demographics. We determined participants’ caregiving status by asking whether they are caregivers for children or caregivers for elderly adults or adults with disabilities. Based on these categorizations, we designated four caregiver statuses: Caregivers of children only (N = 494), caregivers of adults only (N = 160), caregivers of both children and adults (N = 74), and respondents who are non-caregivers (N = 243). A chart of the percent of respondents from each category is shown in Figure 3 below. For caregivers of children, we also asked whether they share caregiving responsibilities with others or have sole responsibility. Of those who responded, 95.4% caregivers of children have shared responsibility while 4.6% reported they have sole responsibility.

Figure 3. Breakdown of four designated caregiver statuses: Caregivers of children only (N = 494) shown in blue, Caregivers of adults only (N = 160) shown in green, Caregivers of both children and adults (N = 74) shown in yellow, and respondents who are non-caregivers (N = 243) shown in red.

Data Analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics Data Analysis software. Tables 3-8 present independent samples t-tests run using SPSS. These tests compare the mean of all responses by a group of respondents to the mean of all responses in a second group. The groups compared are listed in each table, above the variable names. For example in Table 6, the mean response for the group “Caregivers” has the mean response from the group “Non-Caregivers” subtracted from it. The mean difference between these groups is then used to generate the t-statistic reported in Column 2 of each table (t). Positive t-statistics indicate that the first group’s mean is larger than the second group’s mean, negative values indicate the reverse. In Table 6, for example, the variable “caregiving increase” has a positive t-statistic, meaning that the “caregiver” group reported a larger increase in caregiving as a result of the pandemic than non-caregivers. This t-statistic also has an asterisk following the number, indicating that the difference in group means is statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be due to random chance. More information on independent samples t-tests, is available in Pollock and Edwards’ An IBM SPSS Companion to Political Analysis, 6th edition, from Sage/CQ Press.

Section 1: Who Is Most Impacted by an Increase in Caregiving Hours?

We asked participants to rate their agreement to the statement “My caregiving responsibilities have increased due to COVID-19.” 71.5% of the sample agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, whereas 22.8% reported neutral or no change. Only 5.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Caregivers of all types (caregivers for children, adults, and of both) reported increased caregiving hours throughout the fall and spring semester. Table 2, shown in Appendix, highlights the types of disruptions and caregiving respondents performed.^[10]

Key Findings: (reported below from the data analysis shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5)

Survey Results:

Caregivers of children (both categories of children and adults and children only) reported statistically higher increases in the amount of additional time spent caregiving during the pandemic than non-caregivers.

Caregiving Increases by Gender

In the spring of 2020, more women (29.7%) reported 11+ or more hours of caregiving per week than men (12.3%), a rate of 2.5x more, presumably due to the sudden transitions in work and school life, where women took on more of the initial caregiving burden of the pandemic.
In the fall of 2020, more women (20.4%) also reported 11+ hours of caregiving burden than men (11.4%) but at a lower rate.

Caregiving Increases by Position

Overall, when accounting for position type, people reported higher caregiving loads in the spring of 2020 compared to the fall. In the spring of 2020, tenure-track faculty (32.9%) reported the largest number of respondents in the 11-15 and 15+ additional hours of caregiving per week, followed by instructional academic staff (31.3%), academic staff (26.9%) and university staff (22.5%). In the fall, fewer people reported the highest levels of additional caregiving hours but this was not uniformly reported across job positions. Instructional Academic Staff reported the highest number of respondents providing 11+ hours of additional caregiving per week (26.5%), with all other groups between 16-18%.
The imbalance in caregiving hours grows when looking at gender and position type. Both instructional and non-instructional women reported higher caregiving hours in Spring 2020 than men: 56.3% of women in instructional roles reported 6 or more hours of caregiving compared to 34.2% of men in instructional roles.
Differences were not quite as large for women in non-instructional roles (42.9%) and men (35.3%).
For Fall 2020, we find that the imbalance in hours grows between women and men in instructional roles (50% to 26.7%). The imbalance is even greater above 11+ hours for these groups, with 22.8% of women and 6.7% of men in these categories. Non-instructional staff show smaller gendered differences in Fall 2020, with approximately 34% of both groups reporting 6 or more hours of additional caregiving, and approximately 18% of both groups reporting 11 or more hours (Men 17.6%, Women 18.7%).

Caregiving Increases by Race

BIPOC women were the most likely to report that caregiving hours “greatly increased” overall.

Section 2: How Did COVID-19 Affect Work Experiences for Caregivers?

Key Findings: (Data available in Tables 5-8, see Appendix)

All groups report negative work impacts related to COVID
Caregivers report greater negative impacts on work time than non-caregivers, with caregivers of children perceiving a greater negative impact than other caregiving groups
Caregivers report more impacts on quality of work than non-caregivers. Again the caregivers of children perceived a greater negative impact than other groups.
Caregivers report increased disruptions in their work routine compared to non-caregivers
Academic Staff reported a perceived increase in workload and were more likely to say their work routine had changed “a lot” when compared to university staff.
Tenured faculty reported more negative impacts on their work than tenure-track faculty
No statistically significant differences were observed between the access campus and comprehensive campus responses.

We asked all participants how much their workload has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority (68.5%) of all respondents indicated that their workload increased either slightly or significantly.

Caregivers: When caregivers were asked whether their caregiving responsibilities negatively impacted the amount of time spent on work-related tasks, 36% indicated that this was the case. Twenty-three percent also indicated that caregiving had negatively impacted the quality of their work. While non-caregivers also indicated a negative impact on work time and quality due to the pandemic, the effect for caregivers was found to be larger and statistically significant due to the impact of caregiving responsibilities.

Caregivers were also more likely to report a large disruption to their work routine as a result of the pandemic. Analyses showed that participants who were caregivers for children (either both children and adults or only children) reported more significant change to their work routines than participants who were caregivers for adults or non-caregivers (who did not differ from one another).

The impacts of the pandemic on caregivers versus non-caregivers was examined in greater detail (Table 6, Appendix). Specifically, we analyzed the amount of time caregivers dedicated to caregiving and the negative impact of the pandemic on work time and on their perspective on the quality of their work. Caregivers reported statistically significant differences from non-caregivers in the amount of additional time spent caregiving by the pandemic and a more negative impact on work time and larger impact on work quality. While non-caregivers also indicated a negative impact on work time and quality, the effect for caregivers is significantly larger.

Additionally, caregivers were more likely to report a large disruption to their work routine as a result of the pandemic (statistically significant, p<.01), while there were no significant differences observed for workload or pay change as a result of COVID-19.

Gender: Analyzing the responses by gender show that both men and women (all respondents) agreed that the pandemic had a negative impact on work time and work quality. Men were more likely to agree on both questions than women. When accounting for caregiving individuals only, the same trend was observed by gender.

Instructional vs. Non-Instructional: When comparing instructional versus non-instructional staff, instructional staff were more likely to agree that their caregiving responsibilities had increased and that these responsibilities had a negative impact on their work time and quality, that their workload had significantly increased, and that their work routine has changed “a lot” when compared to non-instructional staff. Instructional staff were also more likely to strongly agree with higher levels of caregiving stress than non-instructional staff, both groups indicated an increase in stress related to balancing caregiving and work relative to before the pandemic.

Breaking down the responses from instructional staff further, we see that tenure track faculty were more likely to agree that caregiving responsibilities had a negative impact on their time when compared to all other groups.

University vs. Academic Staff: When comparing University staff to Academic staff (non-instructional), significant differences were observed for workload or work routine. Academic staff were more likely to suggest their workload had increased and more likely to say their work routines had changed “a lot” (53% to 42%, respectively).

Campus Type: Lastly, the responses from individuals at the access campuses were compared to respondents from the comprehensive campuses to determine if there were differences observed between the two groups. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the analysis indicating experiences between the two groups were similar.

In open-ended responses, participants cited changes in work routine, work increases, disrupted childcare schedules, elder care, illness, and reduced pay or furloughs as negatively impacting their ability to work. Many cited flexible work schedules and remote work as moderately improving things in the short-term but feared lasting impacts on career progression and advancement. As one respondent wrote, “I just don’t have the time to devote to work the same way I have in the past. Because I’m anxious and stressed, the quality of time that I have to do my work suffers, too.” Another stated, “Due to caregiving responsibilities, I have not been able to complete research projects that would bolster my CV…I am strongly considering leaving the classroom and the goal of a tenure track position – resulting in a total career change.” Similarly, another participant stated, “My ability to carry out research responsibilities has been severely impacted. Access to labs and training opportunities are curtailed to impossible. Class tasks that seem easy at first, eat up more time than delivering in-person lectures. Opportunities for meaningful interactions with students are/feel limited. I feel like I have so much to do and I will never be able to complete it all, and the pile grows bigger each day. I have had to learn so many new ways of carrying out my work throughout the pandemic that I am burned out on new tools. It is getting harder and harder to compartmentalize my worries about workload.”

Many respondents described challenging work-life balance scenarios which undermined both the quality of their work and their mental health. Deploying strategies such as working late into the night, putting in hours over the weekend, and balancing increased demands on all fronts appeared as a common theme. As one respondent reported, “I still provide the same quality work, just finding balance is hard and can create a lot of stress.” Similarly, another wrote, “In order to get my work done I stay up until 2:00 am each night during the week. There is additional work because as faculty I am teaching both in-person and remotely and it almost doubles the necessary prep time. This is especially true of labs where I have more to set up and take down because students cannot share equipment due to Covid. It has added 20 hours of work to my week. I now have to spend the whole weekend doing lab prep.” Another respondent stated, “Virtually all of my work time is interrupted in some form or can be interrupted at any time. This doesn’t have as much impact on things like teaching or service, but it has a huge impact on research. It is very difficult to find time that I can be completely alone and focus for a few hours. I would say it is pretty much impossible unless I do not sleep.” These comments and others reveal the challenging situation faced by many employees as they attempted to maintain professional responsibilities in face of increasing caregiving burdens.

While the pandemic negatively impacted all groups, caregivers reported the most negative impacts on the quality and time they committed to work. In the open-ended responses, some respondents reported that the pandemic had no impact on their work, but many qualified this response with statements relating to the relative independence of their children or relying on the support of a partner to shoulder caregiving burdens. As cited above, some stated that while their mental health and stress levels increased, they maintained the same quality and quantity of work and, in some instances, even increased their output by working late into the evening and on weekends. Others described focusing on the immediate tasks at hand at the expense of critical career benchmarks. As one participant wrote, “Significantly more time was spent moving classes to online format or adapting in-person classes to meet COVID restrictions. This has added significantly to my workload, where it is like teaching and preparing whole new classes from scratch. All other activities I did as a part of my job (research, service) have had to fall by the wayside for the most part. I believe this will have major negative ramifications for my professional development and career in the future. This has affected my physical and mental health enormously.”

A small number of respondents stated that the pandemic actually INCREASED the quality of their work by providing more opportunities for flexibility in scheduling and technological innovation. The flexibility provided by remote work and hybrid schedules allowed employees to meld caregiving with increased work demands in new and innovative ways. As one participant wrote, “It was a learning curve to help the kids with remote while also prioritizing work responsibilities but it has helped myself become more organized and increased my multi-tasking abilities.” Another stated, “I think the ability to flex my schedule around my child’s school schedule and activity schedule in the future may allow me to stay committed to my job and therefore may allow for possible promotions or career opportunities that wouldn’t have been available to me without this flexibility…It’s nice to know in the future that I could potentially have a position with more responsibility and still be allowed flexibility to take care of my family the way I want to and need to.” While this model of work is not always sustainable, it reflects the benefits for employers and employees in finding a common ground for balancing caregiving with organizational demands and deadlines.

Section 3: How has COVID Impacted Job Satisfaction?

Open-ended responses revealed a mix of attitudes towards workplace satisfaction. Some respondents expressed gratitude and appreciation towards flexible work policies during the pandemic and specifically cited considerations granted for caregiving as critical to this satisfaction. Others described discontent with reduced pay, increased workloads, and insensitive comments from co-workers and supervisors related to caregiving. Overall, the stress of the pandemic and its impact of work routines and workload had an impact across all job categories.

Key Findings:

52% of participants indicated that their job satisfaction has decreased either slightly or significantly
A significantly higher number of men (57%) reported their job satisfaction has decreased compared to women (50%)
There were no statistical differences observed when comparing caregiving status (i.e., caregiver of children, caregiver of adults, non-caregiver, etc.), though respondents with caregiving support from a partner felt a greater drop in job satisfaction (54%) than caregivers with sole responsibility (33%).
When accounting for rank, instructional employees reported a statically larger decrease in job satisfaction than academic or university staff. 74% of tenured faculty, 65% of tenure-track, and 62% of IAS reported a drop in job satisfaction compared to 41% of academic/university staff.
Job satisfaction (while low overall) was higher for IAS than for other academic staff.

Nationally, it has been reported that BIPOC individuals had increased difficulty during the pandemic. When we conducted an analysis of BIPOC versus white caregivers, shown in Table 3, the results indicated that there were no significant differences from what BIPOC caregivers reported compared to white caregivers with the exception of mental health experiences, which will be discussed below. Individual campus surveys with a wider distribution rate across all groups may reflect findings more in line with other national surveys.

Section 4: What are the Career Impacts of Caregiving?

In open-ended responses related to caregiving and career impacts, respondents cited the following impacts from caregiving during COVID on their career trajectory:

Increased stress, fatigue, and reduced self-care
Increased distractions at home
Missed work hours or reduced work hours
Changed hours (largely due to working nights and weekends)
Unfavorable performance reviews or negative feedback from a supervisor on work performance
An unplanned job change to offset caregiving demands or early retirement
Missed promotions or professional development opportunities (turned down or didn’t apply for a new job or promotion, interrupted publishing or research, missed trainings, EDI opportunities, and networking events).

Consistent with the quantitative results, most people responding to questions about career impacts expressed high-levels of stress and fatigue associated with caregiving in general which was exacerbated by COVID. As one respondent reported, “It takes up more mental space in your mind when you are trying to balance everything at home. Making sure that you complete your tasks and work deadlines while at the same time, making sure that your kids are staying on tasks, helping them with their school work, meeting their deadlines, making sure that they are fed and taken care of. Trying to balance everything mentally and physically is straining.” Similarly another wrote, “I’m really just exhausted. My hours are the same, except for the interruptions due to quarantine. Our family life has been good but also a logistical nightmare. Two of my four kids have nearly failed a grade. I was able to work with them to get used to the new learning methods and the requisite self-control but I am really just tired with the additional work and, frankly, worry.”

While flexibility and remote work options continued to arise as helpful solutions for mitigating some of this fatigue, people reported inconsistency across campus, largely based on the dynamics of their department or the empathy exhibited by supervisors. While many reported understanding from co-workers and supervisors, others worried about the repercussions of caregiving. As one respondent wrote, “I am the only one in my department with a school-aged child, and my supervisor has been difficult with my need to take leave time to help care for my child during remote learning. She has commented to me that my job would likely be the one eliminated in our department if there are cuts to positions.” Reflecting a similar dynamic, another respondent reported, “I cannot do more at work because I am exhausted from supporting kids at home. Because I cannot improve delivery of instruction, I may be viewed less favorably and therefore may be seen as being less supportive in our department. This may lead to being one of the first in our department to be laid off if there are budget cuts.”

Importantly, these responses reveal many of the reasons why caregivers (largely women) choose to opt out of demanding jobs or tenure-track positions when caregiving responsibilities increase. As one participant explained, “Due to caregiving responsibilities, I have not been able to complete research projects that would bolster my CV…I am strongly considering leaving the classroom and the goal of a tenure track position – resulting in a total career change.” Another similarly reported, “Due to the amount of extra work that virtual teaching has created, along with my son being home from high school and my three-year-old home all of the time with me while I work, I have had little time to produce scholarship or apply for jobs. As a lecturer, I have a contingent contract, which means that I should be applying for positions elsewhere. But I keep pushing that off due to all of the other work that I have for the courses that I teach. I am concerned that this will negatively affect my ability to get a tenure-track professorship in the future.” Revealing the impacts felt by many academic staff, another person wrote, “There have been several opportunities for lateral moves that would be an increase in hours and an increase in pay but I would not be able to provide the caregiving needed for the disabled adults so I have declined the transfers.”

While many of these comments reflect the stresses and strains felt by caregivers over the past year, these same responses underscore the type of institutional support that lessened the burden of the past year. Even as people described frustrations and concerns about their professional advancement, they also cited the following sources of support as partially offsetting caregiving concerns:

Supportive and empathetic supervisors
Flexible work schedules
The ability to work remotely
Supportive and understanding co-workers
Emergency furlough leave separate from from PTO and FMLA
Flexible course modalities
Virtual meetings

Section 5: How Does Caregiving Impact Mental Health?

Key Findings: (see Tables 3, 4, 6, and 8, see Appendix)

All groups report a decline in mental health due to COVID
Caregivers report increased negative mental health outcomes
Instructional staff report higher levels of caregiving stress, although both instructional and non-instructional report increases in stress related to balancing care and work
Balancing care and work had the most negative impacts for BIPOC respondents
BIPOC respondents were also more likely (23.7% to 16.1%) more likely to report the negative impact as “a lot.”
The above shows that BIPOC respondents reported mental health experiences due to COVID that were more negative on average than those of white respondents.

We also examined how the intersection of work and caregiving during COVID-19 impacted participants’ level of stress and their mental health. We first asked whether balancing caregiving and work led to stress. 79% of participants agreed that this work-caregiving balance created a significant amount of stress.

Caregivers vs. Non-Caregivers: When examining caregiving responsibilities, caregivers as a group indicated a larger decline in mental health outcomes than non-caregivers when focusing on COVID. While both groups reported declines (68.5% of the entire sample reported “somewhat negative” mental health experiences due to COVID and another 15.6% reported “very negative” experiences), caregivers as a group reported more negative mental health outcomes than non-caregivers. Additional analysis indicated that caregivers of children (those who care for both children and adults or children only) reported a significantly higher negative impact than those without children (caregivers of adults or non-caregivers) who did not differ from one another (Table 6).

Job Type and Mental Health: When looking at job positions, tenure and tenure-track participants (who did not differ from one another) reported a significantly greater impact than academic/university staff. Instructional staff reported a greater average negative impact from COVID on their mental health than non-instructional staff, which is shown in Table 4. This difference is statistically significant. The difference does not hold when the sample is restricted to caregivers only, meaning that the group means not statistically different, although instructional staff were also more likely to strongly agree with higher levels of caregiving stress than non-instructional staff, though the means of both groups indicate an increase in stress related to balancing caregiving and work relative to before the pandemic.

Gender and Mental Health: Participants were then asked how much balancing caregiving and work impacted their mental health. Of those who responded, 23% indicated that it somewhat impacted their mental health, while 15% of participants indicated it impacted their mental health a lot. No significant differences were found among men and women on the caregiving stress and mental health questions (See Table 7). Group mean analysis showed that both men and women reported an increase in stress and negative mental health effects from balancing work, but differences between men and women do not reach statistical significance when analyzed as a full set (caregiver or non-caregiver) or when analyzed by caregiver gender. Caregivers, regardless of gender, did indicate negative mental health effects and increased stress. There was a significant difference observed in whether or not mental health services were sought (Table 7), where 20% of women sought services compared to 11% of men who responded to the survey.

Race and Ethnicity: Table 3 provides a comparison analysis of BIPOC respondents to white respondents. The analysis shows that BIPOC respondents are more likely to report that balancing caregiving and work has negatively impacted their mental health (8.5% of BIPOC respondents indicated no impact compared to 21% of white respondents). BIPOC respondents were also more likely (23.7% to 16.1%) more likely to report the negative impact as “a lot.” The above shows that BIPOC respondents reported mental health experiences due to COVID that were more negative on average than those of white respondents. The analysis was also conducted for just BIPOC and White caregivers. Those tests show that the COVID mental health difference remains, however white caregivers reported lower average mental health outcomes than BIPOC caregivers. Looking at the intersection of gender, race, and caregiving status, shows that only significant differences were observed in the seeking of services where 22% of white women sought help compared to 8% of BIPOC women (t=-2.286, p<.02). Additionally, a “caregiving increase” of 4.5 (BIPOC) to 4.22 (white) was observed indicating that BIPOC women were more likely to strongly agree that caregiving responsibilities have increased.

Open-ended responses reflected the range of mental health strains caregivers connected to balancing the demands of caregiving and work for the academic year. As one participant wrote, “Working remotely has only added responsibilities and stress to my day. There is no clear boundary between work and home. As a result, home things come up during work time (e.g., children need help or direction) and work things are never-ending (e.g., increased email at all times of day/night; extra communications requiring time above and beyond normal). The stress of sitting in front of a computer all day is extreme and includes physical fatigue, eye fatigue, brain fog, and more.” Another stated, “It takes up more mental space in your mind when you are trying to balance everything at home. Making sure that you complete your tasks and work deadlines while at the same time, making sure that your kids are staying on tasks, helping them with their school work, meeting their deadlines, making.” Revealing the strains of those engaged in eldercare and childcare while engaging in frontline work, one participant explained, “I was unable to work remotely as I was an essential employee. Taking on the added responsibilities of having my child at home, having my elderly mother and adult disabled sister move into my home was a challenge but it was a priority. The increased workload brought on by the pandemic and taking on more work in the household has been exhausting.” These comments reveal a similar refrain of exhaustion and fatigue across multiple forms of caregiving and employee classification levels.

Section 6: Next Steps and Institutional Strategies for Support:

When surveyed on how institutions can support caregivers, respondents ranked the following categories as the most useful areas for support:

Key Findings:

Flexible scheduling and work from home options (75.4%)
Caregiving responsibilities taken into account in performance evaluations (49.8%)
Virtual meetings and email alternatives to meetings (63%, 47.6% respectively)
Clear communication on leave policies and flexibility (44.7%)
Training for supervisors on how to support caregivers (34.4%)

In the open-ended responses pertaining to institutional support, respondents answered in a similar fashion.

Participants ranked flexibility as a critical priority for the future. Within this response, participants mentioned hybrid work schedules, flexible work hours, virtual meetings, and the ability to flex hours down as needed as top priorities. While many respondents connected flexibility to caregiving for children or adults, many cited flexible work options as a morale booster and retention tool for all employees.

Participants also commonly cited concrete policy change as a critical factor in supporting caregivers. Some of the potential policy changes included paid parental leave, flexible workplace policies, and caregiving leave disaggregated from PTO. Others requested ongoing policies of flexibility and performance evaluation for the 2021-22 academic year as many employees still grapple with the effects of COVID. Within this question, several respondents cited a need for consistent application of policies across all campuses and departments, and also human resource protections for employees to utilize these options without repercussions.

Other participants indicated that survey information on caregiving needed wide circulation amongst administrative leadership: UWSA, Board of Regents, Chancellors, Provosts, Deans, Department Chairs and Directors. Others included human resource teams. Overwhelmingly, participants wanted leadership to view data that underscored the complexity of caregiving challenges and the range of caregiving roles and responsibilities employees occupy.

Another pool of respondents mentioned increased campus resources such as elder care support, on campus childcare (equity-focused and accessible for all employees), on-site daycare or childcare grants, and wellness programs as important supports to increase employee satisfaction and retention.

Training for supervisors also arose as a common suggestion on how to best support caregivers as an important tool for supporting caregivers. Respondents again cited a need for supervisors to understand that caregiving can take many forms (care for young children, elder care, support for family members or children with disabilities, hospice care for a partner or parent). Others cited a need for supervisors to more clearly understand the stress of caregiving and the equity-issues connected to supporting employees who occupy these roles. Others indicated that supervisors needed training to understand how to support and manage remote and flexible work options effectively.

A final grouping of responses included a need for cultural shifts which normalized and made caregiving responsibilities a legitimate reason to request flexibility and time off without negative job impacts.

Appendix

Report Tables:

Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/. Respondent totals differ by variable due to missing responses for some questions. The sample also includes 15 respondents who identify as nonbinary or preferred not to answer the gender question, 20 who preferred not to answer the race question, and 15 who preferred not to answer the Latinx ethnicity question. These respondents are included when gender or race (respectively) are not a part of the analysis. Demographic information is presented both as a count of the number of respondents in each identity group and as a percentage of all respondents. Reading across each row will sum to 100% of the sample, apart from errors introduced through rounding.

Note: N=781 (all respondents); N=578 respondents with children; N=236 respondents with adult dependents. Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/. Values in cells are percentages. The first column indicates the percentage of all respondents who experienced the complication, the second column indicates the percentage of child or adult caregiving respondents as appropriate.

Note: N=878-934, owing to missing responses on some questions. Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. Data presented here are independent samples t-tests. These tests compare the mean of all responses by a group of respondents to the mean of all responses in a second group. The groups compared are listed in each table, above the variable names. The mean difference between these groups is then used to generate the t-statistic reported in Column 2 of each table. Positive t-statistics indicate that the first group’s mean is larger than the second group’s mean, negative values indicate the reverse. This t-statistic also has an asterisk following the number, indicating that the difference in group means is statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be due to random chance. **p<.01; *p<.05

For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/.

Note: N=851-894, owing to missing responses on some questions. Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. Data presented here are independent samples t-tests. These tests compare the mean of all responses by a group of respondents to the mean of all responses in a second group. The groups compared are listed in each table, above the variable names. The mean difference between these groups is then used to generate the t-statistic reported in Column 2 of each table. Positive t-statistics indicate that the first group’s mean is larger than the second group’s mean, negative values indicate the reverse. This t-statistic also has an asterisk following the number, indicating that the difference in group means is statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be due to random chance. **p<.01; *p<.05 Instructional staff include: Instructional academic staff, tenure track faculty, and tenured faculty. Academic staff include: academic staff, university staff, and other.

For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/.

Note: Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. Data presented here are independent samples t-tests. These tests compare the mean of all responses by a group of respondents to the mean of all responses in a second group. The groups compared are listed in each table, above the variable names. The mean difference between these groups is then used to generate the t-statistic reported in Column 2 of each table. Positive t-statistics indicate that the first group’s mean is larger than the second group’s mean, negative values indicate the reverse. This t-statistic also has an asterisk following the number, indicating that the difference in group means is statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be due to random chance. **p<.01; *p<.05 Instructional staff include: Instructional academic staff, tenure track faculty, and tenured faculty. Academic staff include: academic staff, university staff, and other.

For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/.

Note: N=903-934, owing to missing responses on some questions. Data are from The Systemwide Caregiving Survey collected from 2/25/21-5/27/21. Data presented here are independent samples t-tests. These tests compare the mean of all responses by a group of respondents to the mean of all responses in a second group. The groups compared are listed in each table, above the variable names. The mean difference between these groups is then used to generate the t-statistic reported in Column 2 of each table. Positive t-statistics indicate that the first group’s mean is larger than the second group’s mean, negative values indicate the reverse. This t-statistic also has an asterisk following the number, indicating that the difference in group means is statistically significant, that is, unlikely to be due to random chance. **p<.01; *p<.05

For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/.

For more information visit https://consortium.gws.wisc.edu/caregiving-task-force/. .

[1] Many caregiving studies emphasize the need to include caregiving within inclusivity initiatives. See this example from The National Alliance for Inclusive and Diverse STEM Faculty. This resource from the University of Maryland also examines gender equity prior to and during COVID, along with offering recommendations.

[2] For other national studies see “The Impact of COVID-19 on the Careers of Women in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medecine” (2021); “Exploring the Gendered Impacts of COVID-19 on Faculty” (2020); “COVID-19’s Impact on Faculty Well-Being and Career Plans” (2020). Stanford University offers this compilation of studies and resources on the topic.

[3] See the comprehensive results from the UW-L Survey “COVID-19 Impacts for Faculty and Staff.“ The UW-Milwaukee Survey “COping with the Pandemic Employee Survey” is still in analysis stages, but preliminary results are in agreement with the systemwide survey on questions related to caregiving. For example, caregiving women and caregiving women of color reported the highest levels of stress related to caregiving and the pandemic. Caregivers also reported negative impacts on the time and quality of work, reported similar caregiving disruptions, and ranked institutional strategies related to flexibility, virtual options for meetings, and research support as top areas to offset the career losses from caregiving and COVID-19. A survey circulated by UW-Madison’s Committee for Women in the University (also not yet published), did not include questions specific to caregiving, but respondents ranked caregiving as the top challenge they faced professionally.

[4] Instructional staff include: Instructional academic staff, tenure track faculty, and tenured faculty. Academic staff include: academic staff, university staff, and other.

[5] For more on institutional barriers facing female academics pre and post-COVID, see this report from The National Bureau of Economic Research.

[6] For more on overwork in academia and the adverse impact on caregivers and women see this article from Nature.

[7] See CDC Indicators and Thresholds for Risk of Introduction and Transmission of COVID-19 in Schools.

[8] See this example from the University of Maryland: https://uhr.umd.edu/benefits/paid-leave/.

[9] While many national publications have highlighted the disproportionate impact of the pandemic of women, The National Bureau of Economic Studies Economic Research offers one of the most comprehensive overviews of COVID-19 and Gender Equity here. See this report from the Fiscal Studies on a comparison of same-sex households, work, and labor distribution.

[10] See this article from Inside Higher Ed for an evidence-based breakdown of national caregiving demographics for academics with a specific emphasis on gendered dynamics.