CARING UNDER COVID-19: HOW THE PANDEMIC IS – AND IS NOT – CHANGING UNPAID CARE AND DOMESTIC WORK RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

 About This Study

This study set out to better understand the shape of these strains and stresses and to assess US patterns of unpaid care and domestic work during COVID-19 from a gender and intersectional lens. Oxfam America and Promundo-US collaborated on a short poll, conducted in May 2020 (approximately two months into widespread social distancing policies in the United States). The study sought to understand the US public’s perceptions about changes to their overall workload, household care arrangements and responsibilities, and the associated stresses and other related emotional reactions. Knowing that other recently published studies on similar themes have looked only and specifically at heterosexual couples, the study’s authors expanded the research to households rather than couples. To this end, the study investigated the role of other adults in the household when it comes to dependent care and also explored unpaid care and domestic work distribution patterns in households with no children, with only female adults, or with only male adults. Finally, the study sought to gauge US public opinion on progressive care work-related policies in the context of COVID-19, as well as on government responses to the pandemic.

Commissioned by Oxfam America and Promundo-US, the polling firm Data for Progress conducted an online and phone survey of 1,743 respondents. The poll took place in May 2020 and included 927 women and 816 men aged 18 to 80. The survey was conducted in English. The sample was designed to give greater emphasis to households with one or more dependents at home, whether child or elderly dependents, resulting in a final sample wherein 71 percent (weighted) of respondents had one or more dependents. As a side effect of this design, the proportion of the sample aged 30 to 55 is disproportionately high. 

As mentioned before, the sample was designed to include multiple kinds of households, including households with both female and male adults (73 percent of the sample, weighted), households with only female adults (16 percent), and households with only male adults (11 percent). Ninety-one percent of respondents defined themselves as heterosexual, with the rest affirming another sexual orientation. Regarding race and ethnicity, 77 percent of respondents identified themselves as White, 10 percent as Black or African American, 6 percent as Hispanic or Latino/a, 3 percent as Asian, 3 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1 percent as a different identity. Finally, regarding income composition, 42 percent of the study participants reported a current household income under $50,000, 34 percent reported an income between $50,000 and $100,000, and 25 percent reported an income above $100,000. 

Regarding the limitations or shortcomings of the sample, results suggest a slightly higher-than-expected proportion of older, higherincome men, as well as of lower-income women and women not working for pay at the time of the survey. The sample is restricted to those with reliable internet access, meaning participants are exclusively those who feel comfortable using technological devices such as computers and cell phones. While these patterns are corrected somewhat by the application of the analytic weights, they remain important to note.

In line with the expertise of Data for Progress, this sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters in the United States based on age, gender, education, urbanicity, race/ethnicity, income, and voting history for all analyses presented in this report. As a result, it is important to interpret all the findings herein as reflective of the demographics of the US population who are most likely to vote. This weighting strategy and sample was chosen to contribute to current issue and policy discussions in the combined context of upcoming US elections and of living with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and government responses. Voters’ views on issues matter in their voting choices, and policymakers and elected officials listen to voter views as part of their decision-making processes and campaign commitments. The study’s authors recognize that this design and weighting approach also has substantial tradeoffs since many populations are historically and systemically underrepresented in elections. Residents of US territories were not excluded from participation in this study, for instance, but rates of participation were very low and the weighting strategy further decreases their power in the findings presented here. The survey neither asked about nor filtered for whether immigrant respondents were documented.