[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
CENSUS FORMS - Carers UK Forum

CENSUS FORMS

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
an extra page you dont say could have saved ANGEL EAGLE some cash we could have written on both sides of the form.

what worries me is just what is a carer what will the question be on the form is a carer someone who gets the carers allowance or is it someone who in their opinion looks after a disabled relative young or old or even a friend will a pensioner carer who does not get the allowance be classed as a carer what about working carers some of them only work 3 hours a day (carers uk figures ) why is it we are trying to push this 5,6,7,8,9, million carers figure the more we have, well what do we gain nobody will regard us as a force to be recond with.

GEORGE
an extra page you dont say could have saved ANGEL EAGLE some cash we could have written on both sides of the form.

what worries me is just what is a carer what will the question be on the form is a carer someone who gets the carers allowance or is it someone who in their opinion looks after a disabled relative young or old or even a friend will a pensioner carer who does not get the allowance be classed as a carer what about working carers some of them only work 3 hours a day (carers uk figures ) why is it we are trying to push this 5,6,7,8,9, million carers figure the more we have, well what do we gain nobody will regard us as a force to be recond with.

GEORGE
A very good question George Image IMHO they have to take into account as you say, those in receipt of CA(Carers allowance)those caring full time? i.e. the infamous 35hrs Image Image but thenI suppose it could be argued that the amount of time you care is immaterial you are still a carer.
My only question would be if asked, what will be done with the information when it is received? Image
It was on the last census form in 2001, the first time it was included. It allowed the government, through the ONS, to establish the number of carers in the country, 6 million, and from that it was possible to calculate the amount of money we save the state, £87 billion. The magnitude of the sum we save the state by providing care strengthens our case for a fairer deal both in terms of access to services and for a higher, universal, carers income.

If I remember correctly the question was sufficiently specific to give a pretty accurate figure and it definitely didn't define a carer solely as someone in receipt of Carers Allowance which is fortunate as many of us are caught by various rules, such as the overlapping benefit rule, which preclude us from claiming Carers Allowance but are nevertheless providing substantial care, some of us 24/7.
You're quite right, Annie, on all counts.

The question specifically excluded foster carers and paid workers (who are often called carers), and included anyone whose life is affected by caring.

Often it's not about how many hours you care for but the impact of the caring. You may be one of four or five family members sharing the care for a parent with dementia, but I defy anyone to say that there is little impact on you if you care for only a few hours a day when that person no longer recognises you.

It's important to know what patterns of caring exist, how many carers there are and whether the expected increases in caring numbers have come about. How can any government make plans without any clear idea of the current trends in caring? That's why it's so important to keep the census question - and such an important victory for common sense. It does happen sometimes!
[

If I remember correctly the question was sufficiently specific to give a pretty accurate figure and it definitely didn't define a carer solely as someone in receipt of Carers Allowance which is fortunate as many of us are caught by various rules, such as the overlapping benefit rule, which preclude us from claiming Carers Allowance but are nevertheless providing substantial care, some of us 24/7.[/quote]

Is it not correct to say we all care 24/7 Image Image
In the sense that we're always on call, yes, but carers and the people they care for get varying levels of support from nothing to substantial and I was referring to those with no support whatsoever when I said 24/7.
My only question would be if asked, what will be done with the information when it is received? Image
The information is invaluable for Carers organisations like us. As Charles pointed out it enables us to do things like the £87 BILLION calculation of what carers contribute to society.

What have we learnt from the 2001 Census?
The 2001 Census has told us:

How many carers there are in every ward: no other survey can give this level of detail. Losing the question will mean that local authorities and health bodies will no longer have a reliable and tailored data source on which to plan services. Without this, they will return to guess work and planning on what they think is right, rather than what they know to be true.

How carers’ health suffers relative to the rest of the population: carers are twice as likely as non-carers to suffer ill-health

Carers providing substantial care are more likely to be clustered in low-level jobs, meaning that carers are working below their potential. Data on carers’ employment is essential to monitor the impact of the right to request flexible working which was introduced in April 2007.

The data shows that caring is an equalities issue. Without the data, carers become invisible again.

What was the actual question in 2001 census?

Do you look after or give any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours, or others because of
- long term physical or mental ill-health or disability
- or problems related to old age.
(Do not count anything you do as part of your paid employment)"

It then asked the person to estimate how many hours a week this was for.

There is a lot more info in the thread on the census in Campaign issues forum
The point i was trying to make is what do we gain if we have 9 million carers or just 1 million carers as it has been said you may have 1 disabled person young or old with a family of carers 4/5 will they enter details on census as being a carer ? or part time carer or a now and again carer or a carer when the wife/husband /son /daughter cant make it that day the question on the form will be many pages long just to ask are you a carer wont work
will they ask are you a 24/7 carer do you get any help the list will go on and on i hope you dont think iam being funny or owt like that but the more you have the less you get .


GEORGE .

It might just be me but iam not happy with the question first of all it does not ask if you regard yourself as a "carer" i believe there is a big difference between a carer who may be working 24/7 with a disabled elderly or young family member possibly on their own, and some one who looks after or offers help and support to a friend or neighbour if you are counting carers i think you should be counting those who care for family members .
those who look after friends or neighbours dont have a "duty" of care to them at all and in my opinion social services should be doing that work and not volunteers .

hope i have not upset any one

even as a family member we dont realy have a duty of care its up to the individual in the end but as ive said before if you do care and in the long run save the N.H.S. SOCIAL SERVICES billions of pounds we should be rewarded for it.

GEORGE
I'm not sure I agree with you George. I think the fact that the census does ask how many hours you care for, makes all the difference.

We know for example that of the 6 million only 1 million are caring at the 24/7 end (50 hrs+). We know that the majority of carers are doing less than 20 hours a week. So we have quite a sophisticated picture to show to government.

Matt
its a good job you are going to show the government because they sure as hell dont listen .


GEORGE