Grant: Travel Awards - Institute Community Support

In Canada, dependent seniors are choosing to age at home instead of in long-term care. Ontario evidence suggests this has shifted the responsibility of care and monetary care costs to informal caregivers. This study explores how Ontario compares to France and England in terms of financial risk protection for informal caregivers of community-dwelling dependent seniors, and what policy lessons Ontario can learn from, or share with, these jurisdictions. This study utilizes descriptive comparative methodology using publicly available policy documents to compare and contrast financial risk protection policies for informal caregivers in the three jurisdictions. I draw on Esping-Andersen's welfare state typology to select jurisdictions that provide variation in state type, and to examine the connection between broader notions of social protection for citizens and the system of financial protection of informal caregivers. I applied an institutional approach to examine how design features of financial protection mechanisms may contribute to coverage inequities. Results reveal two financial protection mechanisms: cash allowances and tax credits. Coverage inequities can be linked to mechanism design, e.g, eligibility and means-testing criteria for cash allowances (France), and restrictions on receiving additional financial protections for those who qualify for cash allowances (France) and tax credits (Ontario/England). Overall, France's financial protection system is congruent with its conservative notions of social welfare; however, less congruency exists in liberal England and Ontario. A liberal state accepts an active role in the social welfare of its citizens, yet, in Ontario, provincial and federal tax credits appear insufficient at protecting informal caregivers from financial risk. Findings suggest that Ontario may want to consider a non-means-tested cash allowance alongside existing tax credits to facilitate choice among caregivers and improve equity in coverage.