Personal Care Aides as Household Employees and Independent Contractors: Estimating the Size and Job Characteristics of the Workforce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Although studies pointed out that the number of personal care aides (PCAs) at risk of being in informal employment arrangements is sizeable, little is known about its size and worker characteristics. This study aimed to estimate the share of PCAs working as household employees or independent contractors. It also aimed to compare their basic job characteristics against the job characteristics of those working as agency and government employees. Research Design and Methods Using data from the 2014–2018 American Community Surveys, a sample of 43,287 PCAs working for pay in the home- and community-based service (HCBS) industry was identified, and their job characteristics—full-time weekly work (i.e., working at least 35 hours per week), year-round work (i.e., working at least 50 weeks a year), and annual gross earning—were analyzed by their employment arrangement. Results Analyses found that (a) close to a quarter of aides in the HCBS industry work as household employees or independent contractors while their share in the workforce varies by state and that (b) the work hours and earnings of full-time year-round working household employees or independent contractors are greater than those of their agency counterparts. The results shed light on why some aides may work as household employees or independent contractors. Discussion and Implications The presence of household employees and independent contractors has important implications for PCAs’ job characteristics and labor shortage in the U.S. home care industry. Considering the potentially negative consequences for both the aides’ economic security and the quality of care that consumers can receive, attention should be paid to ways to bring the aides into a more formal employment arrangement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".