Abstract
A growing number of empirical studies deal with children’s participation in care relationships in the family. Based on a review of empirical findings in the UK and Germany, this article discusses care-giving children in terms of vulnerability and agency. The focus is set on understandings of family life as interdependent and reciprocal relationships between parents and their minor children. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and social-political programmes in the UK are analysed with regard to their influence on child carers’ agency and participation as social citizens. The article contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of child carers, and contributes to the development of a theory of care.
Towards the end of the 20th century all western European industrialized societies observed restructuring processes towards more market conformity, less social engagement of the state and a shift in public to private responsibility (Brueckner, 2004). The labour force is confronted by increasing demands from the labour market in terms of time flexibility and spatial mobility (e.g. extending work into the evening, weekend work and shifting job placements requiring travelling). This requires continuous adjustment and appropriate efforts by individuals and affects their social relationships and family life. Families, especially with members in need of care, face a challenge trying to respond to the high demands of the labour market, while, at the same time, the offer of available social services such as care institutions is inadequate (‘care crisis’; Glenn, 2000). For the majority of people, ongoing reforms in the health sector mean more responsibility in caring for their dependent relatives, as they are probably unable to afford even low paid private care services (Metzing-Blau and Schnepp, 2008). Currently, caring for those who cannot care for themselves is devalued, invisible and if paid, underpaid. It falls upon those who lack economic, political and social power and status (Glenn, 2000). As the work of feminist scholars has shown, the devaluation of caring contributes to the marginalization, exploitation and dependency of care-givers.
The study of children as care-givers in present day societies is a recent development only.
It is the aim of this article to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of children involved in family care arrangements, based on theoretical approaches of interdependency and care.
Looking at history, at least since the mid-19th century, children have generally been thought of in terms of their distinctiveness from adults. In socialization theories influenced by developmental psychology, children were seen as ‘becomings’, a view that puts emphasis on children’s vulnerability, their incompleteness and incompetence in contrast to the assumed stability and completeness of adults (Lee, 2001). In studies on families and certainly in studies on younger children, children have been typically conceptualized as passive recipients and socialized dependants of parents’ and adults’ care. This conception of childhood as a ‘period of dependency’ also implied the children’s lack of responsibility (Morrow, 2008; Such and Walker, 2005).
The new paradigm in the social studies of childhood places children in the context of the ‘here and now’. ‘Childhood’ is discussed as an element of social structure, like class, ethnicity and gender. Children are depicted as social actors and agents. Viewing children as social actors allows an analysis of the processes of what it means to be a ‘child’ as it has been described for children in contemporary western industrialized societies (e.g. Coninck-Smith et al., 1997). It opens up the perspective for processes of negotiation between parents and children in everyday life, their practices, the distribution of household duties and the limits and freedoms of personal interests in relation to family/parent interests (Solberg, 1997). To see children as agents is to regard them as also having a part to play in the lives of those around them, in the societies in which they live and as forming independent relationships and cultures (James, 2009). At the same time, children are seen as influenced by the structures and relationships in which they are embedded.
The article is composed of four main parts. First it takes a closer look at the term ‘caring children’, paying attention to the problem of invisibility, the gendering of tasks and the limits associated with a narrow focus on parent–child relationships only. Building on this, I discuss a variety of empirical findings in view of their underlying concepts of childhood. My next argument centres around the concept of ‘vulnerability’, taking into account feminist reflections on justice and welfare in relation to childhood. This leads on to a third step, children’s understanding of family relationships, namely their concept of responsibility. The article finishes with an overview of present legal frameworks in the UK and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, discussing the impact on the agency and social citizenship of children with responsibility for caring. From a sociological perspective, the article focuses on the implications of the phenomenon of care-giving children for the understanding of childhood and children, and parents.
What are caring children?
Becker and his colleagues at Loughborough University, UK define young carers as ‘children and young persons under 18 who provide or intend to provide care, assistance or support to another family member. They carry out, often on a regular basis, significant or substantial caring tasks and assume a level of responsibility which would usually be associated with an adult’ (Becker et al., 2001: 70). The impact on the child’s development and childhood from the need to care for a physically or mentally ill relative is often also included in the definition of young carers.
However, children for a long time have not been perceived as being involved in the running of the family household, or in regular care-giving in situations of chronic illness of parents or a parent, either by professionals in the public health system, namely psychiatric services, or by professionals in the public service/social work services. Empirical research as early as 1988 in the UK, and again in 1998, points to the problem that care-giving children are an invisible phenomenon. Today, due also to research activities in the UK, awareness has increased about children as care-givers. Not least because of a general rise in awareness about the need to know more about children’s lives. In 2003, the UK Office of National Statistics published the data of the 2001 Census: there were 175,000 young carers in the UK (Dearden and Becker, 2004), which amounts to approx. 1.5 percent of children under the age of 18 living in Great Britain. In her literature review covering German and international studies related to young carers, children of parents with chronic illness and care, Metzing concludes there are many more children involved in responsible caring than is known from official figures. This is the same for all European countries (Metzing, 2007: 47). Missing precise data on the number of young carers in Germany, Metzing points to the difference in estimates: Schneekloth and Potthoff (1993) suggest that 0.3 percent of family members involved in care-giving are minors, i.e. this would imply 2500 children and youths are involved in care-giving to one or more family members. Dietz and Clasen (1995) estimate 72,000 children in Germany to be involved in providing care services to a relative. This difference is explained by different underlying definitions of ‘young carers’: while the first figure only considers those where children are assumed to be the prime care-giver, the higher number also includes children and youths if they support the principal person responsible for care-giving in the family (see Metzing, 2007: 25).
Girls are slightly more involved in care-giving than boys (for the UK, Dearden and Becker, 2004); also, the distribution of the types of specific tasks performed within care relationships is gendered: girls are involved in domestic work and personal care. As Dearden and Becker point out, rather than gender it appears to be the specific family structure that influences the child’s involvement in care-giving (Dearden and Becker, 1995, 1998). This includes aspects like the presence of siblings, the sex of the ill person, how many adults share the household, whether the ill person is the only adult, etc.
The caring tasks children perform have been grouped into domestic tasks, general care, emotional support, intimate care, child care and others (Dearden and Becker, 2004). 1
In a nutshell, children fill the gaps in the running of household and family affairs which occur because the principal responsible person is either impeded due to his or her illness or overwhelmed by his or her care responsibilities (Metzing, 2007: 30). Thus these children and youths are committed to household chores in addition to giving care to family members (Metzing, 2007). For many children, care-giving is a routine. Their participation can be differentiated by being the ‘sole carer’, i.e. the principal person responsible for care-giving; being a ‘supportive carer’, i.e. the child is helping the principle care-giver; and being a ‘child-carer’, i.e. the child is responsible for the care of other children, siblings, etc. 2 Caring does not always start dramatically, it is rather a gradual process, beginning with children ‘helping out’ and thereby growing into a caring role later. This process is influenced by the characteristics of the illness itself and by the family situation in general. Caring is a long-term commitment for many children and it can start at an early age (Dearden and Becker, 2004).
Vulnerable children
Children involved in caring relationships are generally discussed as vulnerable and as children in need. The variety of approaches underlying the empirical studies discussed in this article can be put along a continuum similar to that known from the child labour/child work debate (Hungerland et al., 2007). On the one end care-giving children are depicted as ‘children in need’. The emphasis is put on their vulnerability. Structural factors like poverty, family composition, missing additional support structures and characteristics of the illness itself, etc. are considered to be the main drive for children to become involved in caring (Aldridge and Becker, 1993; Dietz, 1995; Metzing, 2007). Children and young people are considered to be most likely to have caring responsibilities in situations where families have to find ways of coping with crises, and where there is no (adequate) support from health and social services, and no substantial help from other family or neighbours. Children are therefore depicted as victims of the circumstances. Caring relationships between children and parents are, especially in German paediatric psychiatry papers, discussed as running the risk of parentification (Romer et al., 2005). Hereby role-reversals between parents and children are understood and are considered to be harmful to the child’s emotional and psychological development. Surprisingly, care-giving children are rarely asked about their motives as it is assumed that they have no choice in these circumstances, in the sense that they cannot effectively refuse to become involved.
On the other end, more emphasis is put on children’s agency. Not discounting structural factors or children’s status in the generational order, empirical research by, for example, Jones and her collegues (Jones et al., 2002) and Metzing (Metzing-Blau and Schnepp, 2008) with care-giving children and their parents conveys a more complex picture of family life and family understanding in families with chronic illness. On the basis of semi-structured interviews with 81 children and parents (including grandparents) in 34 families across Germany, Metzing (2007) 3 observes the phenomenon that children whose parents suffer from chronic illness want to ‘keep the family together’: children try to keep up family routine, fill the gaps wherever possible, are ‘ready’ on the spot to be able to act and react whenever it is needed due to the illness. Their appreciation of the situation shows children to be moral actors, able to take on the perspective of the Other, putting aside temporarily their own interests for the benefit of others (Mayall, 2002). Children show an understanding of mutuality in relationships in which they perceive themselves as actively participating, as agents able and entitled to change or to improve a situation of family hardship, as in the case of chronic illness.
Fjone et al. (2009) describe four different forms of actions developed by children with parents suffering from mental health distress: seeking equality (with other children), avoiding exposure, seeking solitude and developing artistic expression (Fjone et al., 2009). Metzing’s findings point out similarly that children wish for ‘normality’ and do not want to be considered ‘different’ or any of their family to be labelled as ‘weird’, with a need to explain every time (Metzing, 2007: 113). Getting involved in care appears ‘natural’, just as it is ‘normal’ to share everyday life with a chronically ill family member and his or her need for care. Questioning their role in this arrangement would imply questioning the concept of ‘normality’ (Metzing, 2007: 35).
The approach adopted in these empirical studies discusses children’s agency against the structural constraints of the specific family situation of chronic illness and concepts of ‘good childhood’, parent–child relationships.
Despite the increased awareness of the contribution of children to care relationships in the family (Dearden and Becker, 2004), emphasis is put on seeing the caring child as a ‘child in need’, in the sense of a victim of the circumstances (Aldridge, 2008; Morrow, 2008). Rather than arguing from a rights-based position, justice for children seems best achieved and protected through a moral discourse on welfare and care. Based on feminist works, Diduck (1999) points out that the ‘the power of the idea of childhood combined with children’s physical dependency remains strong, so that the paramountcy of their welfare is asserted over their rights legally. Moreover, the protection of that welfare becomes a legal, political and moral imperative’ (Diduck, 1999: 131; emphasis in original).
We can thus observe the following from the empirical findings discussed. Children’s own perception of the specific care arrangement seems to be linked to their specific experience of agency in the family context, and their understanding of ‘normal’ family or teenage life. Both Metzing (2007) and Jones et al. (2002) qualify the notion of choice regarding children’s commitment to caring tasks by the lack of alternatives to their family situation: children’s and young people’s decisions need to be placed in the context of the power relationships within their families, particularly those of age and gender, and discussed in view of structural, macro-social factors.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation and motivations of care-giving children, we therefore need to employ an approach that necessarily includes an analysis of a variety of factors, paying special attention to the specific situation of the individual family. This may include their specific understanding of family life, their specific concept of being a child, or being a parent, their economic situation, the gender and cultural/ethnic background and the type and level of impairment of the ill person and the care needed, the specific caring tasks given and the extent of external support or non-existence of external support (Metzing, 2007). 4
Caring children and family relationships: Interdependent and reciprocal
Both children and parents describe their relationship as a different style of looking after, whereby it is recognized by the parents that some of the tasks their children do involve the commitment of more skill and more time than might be expected of other children in the same age group.
Caring children and young people are not only care providers, they also receive care. Disabled parents do not cease to be competent parents nor do children move out of their status as children in a relationship where they provide care. Jones et al. (2002) stress the point that most young carers literature in the UK is influenced by a specific understanding of parent–child relationships, founded in western modernist thinking. Alexander (1995) and Jones et al. (2002) highlight the pitfalls concerning terms like caring: these may be framed by middle-class oriented concepts of family that translate into ethnocentric and pathological notions of caring. Herein responsibility is conveyed to children only when it seems appropriate in terms of a specific understanding of age and development (Alexander, 1995). Miller (2005) observes a bias in the young carers literature on parent–child relationships, neglecting other care relationships among family members, such as sibling relationships, grandchild–grandparent (Miller, 2005) and with members of the family who do not share the same household (Jones et al., 2002). Thus, there is a risk of the term ‘young carer’ being defined too narrowly, obscuring the complexity of family life and the ways in which care is reciprocated and shared.
To learn about children’s experiences and understanding of responsibility in the context of family life, Such and Walker (2005) held conversations with primary school children in England in summer 2002. Twenty-nine children, aged 9–10, participated in the exploratory study, the majority of them from a socioeconomic background showing middle-class characteristics. Their findings reveal children’s understanding of responsibility to mean, for example, doing things to help maintain the functioning of the household. Its interdependent and relational nature is crucial to children’s understanding of responsibility. ‘For children, the family was “. . . a haven of obligation”, not a haven from obligation’ (Such and Walker, 2005: 48). Responsibility is not seen as unidirectional, with adults assuming responsibility for the child as implied for example in British family policy. It is rather experienced as a complex, multidirectional negotiation between parents, other adults and the children themselves.
Related to the definition of ‘help’ in parent–child relationships, Metzing (2007) observes a difference between the perception of chronically ill parents and that of their children: while parents express the intention to avoid involving children in demanding caring activities or household labour, children from their perspective point out the necessity to give support to their parent(s). ‘We are also of great help to mum, because I am sure she wouldn’t manage it all on her own’ (11-year-old girl, quoted in Metzing, 2007: 104). Both parents and children endorse general principles about parental responsibility for children’s well-being, yet in the practice of everyday life or under specific circumstances their perception of ‘the right thing to do’ may differ from normative consensus (Brannen et al., 2000). Jones et al. (2002) point out that most parents acknowledge the contributions of children to everyday life and the effective running of households as a major factor in keeping the family unit (Jones et al., 2002). In Morrow’s study ‘Understanding Family’ 5 (Morrow, 2008), half of the 12- to 14-year-olds used notions of mutual support and reciprocity in their conceptualization of ‘family’, independently of their ethnic background. Morrow quotes them stating ‘families are for caring for each other’ and ‘looking after each other’ (Morrow, 2008; for similar findings see Brannen et al., 2000). The explorative study ‘Children and Work’, focusing on the motives and meanings of work to children in Germany, 6 indicates children picture themselves as active agents. Given the opportunity, they are keen to produce relief as they feel responsible for the well-being of their parents, siblings and also relatives (Wihstutz, 2007).
The difference between children who take over tasks in the household and family without being involved in caring and those considered young carers can be described as ‘if they don’t do it, it doesn’t get done’(Becker et al., 2004, quoted in Metzing, 2007: 114).
This leads us to the much wider debate about the conceptualization of childhood and the role of children in society and community life. A rough but significant framework is presented by the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989 (UN CRC) signed by most nation-states.
Caring children and the children’s rights discourse
In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), children are stipulated as having a right to representation. The CRC is based on the idea of pursuing ‘the best interest of the child’ in all its measures. It is this principle that resembles the red thread throughout the convention. Children are for the first time recognized as legal entities with a right to provision and protection and to participation. The CRC stipulates the right of children to express their opinion and to have free access to information and media. It also states that children have the right to be informed in such ways that they understand the issues treated (CRC Art. 12–15, and 17). Signing states are obliged to guard the private sphere and individual dignity of the child (CRC Art. 16). Parents or custodians of the child have the right and duty to support and enable the child in the exertion of his or her rights, qualified, however, according to the individual development of the child (CRC Art. 5). The principle of ‘best interest’ in Article 3 of the Convention opens up a two-way door: as the criteria for the ‘best interest’ are neither specified nor who is to judge on them clarified, the principle leaves room for contradicting interpretations. If interpreted as an expression of the underlying conception of childhood underscored by cognitive and emotional incompetence, it is an endorsement to limit the degree and nature of children’s involvement. However, if the ‘best interest’ principle is understood as parting from the child as subject, this endorsement could literally mean a reflection and respect of children’s needs, interests, wishes, etc. in all issues; thereby contributing to children’s participation.
The CRC principally shares an understanding of childhood based on the modernist conception, stating in its objectives the aim of protecting children from discrimination, neglect and abuse. At the same time, we find reference to the new idea of the child as a holder of participatory rights and freedoms. In the terms of Diduck (1999) in the CRC we find both elements of welfare, i.e. justice to children through protection, and elements of the idea of legal subject, based on principles of autonomy and self-interest. The CRC does not incorporate the notion of the child as a member of a community and the recognition of their influence and embedment in the needs and interests of their community. The child as such is hence not conceptualized as actively participating in the production and reproduction of his or her own well-being and the well-being of his or her kin. 7 Thus the concern expressed by children with caring responsibilities for their ill or disabled relatives seems out of place and, therefore, not a ‘normal’ attitude by children under the age of majority.
Empirical studies on care-giving children (e.g. Jones et al., 2002; Metzing, 2007) depict children involved in caring relationships to want not only support for their families as a means of their own relief from difficult or stressful tasks, but they also want services focusing on their own specific needs. One need expressed by the children is to be informed by health professionals and social workers. They express the wish to be talked to about the situation and to have their needs and interests acknowledged. However, children are to a great extent not informed by professionals and other adults about the character of illness and its consequences. It is the understanding of children to be dependent on adults, and for adults to be the sole person responsible for the well-being of all family members that is expressed in a professional’s attitude when facing a child, as described in the case of caring children. Children’s vulnerability with regard to developmental factors is thus also structurally reinforced, not least because of sociopolitical measures that reconfirm their status as dependants and minors, i.e. vulnerable members of society.
Caring children have been discussed as ‘vulnerable children’ and as ‘children in need’ (Aldridge, 2008). The CRC states the right of children to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development (CRC Art. 32). Their involvement as care-givers in their family is not considered ‘work’ in terms of the ILO definition of ‘work’, as they do not perform the task in a third party household and generally do not receive any financial remuneration (on care-giving in the family defined as non-work, see Glenn, 2000). The impact of absence of choice is also referred to, thereby negating care-giving to be work understood in contractual terms (Leonard, 2007). However, the discourse on the impact of caring on children is discussed in similar terms as the child labour discourse: the detrimental influence (of work) on the child’s physical, mental, social, moral and emotional development. In both cases, the underlying idea is that responsibility of children for (paid) work or for (unpaid) care-giving is harmful to the child’s development, and also conflicts with the social position of children in society in relation to adults.
Focusing more specifically on the UK context as a pioneer country in terms of public awareness and policy on young carers, the UK government appears to be torn between the notion that children are dependent on parents for well-being, and the idea that individuals should take responsibility for their own action (Such and Walker, 2005).
In the UK, young carers have the right to an assessment and support under legislation. 8 Specialist projects have been developed to meet their needs. The term ‘carer’ is included in the languages of law and policy (e.g. the 1995 Carers [Recognition and Services] Act) and of social services policy, in which ‘young carers’ are categorized as children ‘in need’ under the 1989 Children Act. Young carers’ needs could be assessed in 1997 under Section 17 of the Children Act (1989) as ‘children in need’, or as carers – at any age – under the 1995 Carers (Recognition and Services) Act. This Act does not apply to children whose needs are addressed through the 1989 Children Act. With the introduction of the Carers and Disabled Children Act (2000), carers over the age of 16 may be assessed and receive services.
In a 1997 study, Becker and Dearden highlighted that the only statistically significant difference between those who had been assessed and those who had not, related to ethnicity (Dearden and Becker, 1998). Young carers from black and ethnic minorities were more likely to receive an assessment (25 percent ‘black’ vs 17 percent ‘white’) under the Children Act, i.e. as ‘children in need’. Also, children from lone parent families were more likely to be assessed under the Children Act (14 percent) compared to children from two parent families (8 percent).
These differences are important as it means that services to support children and their families on the basis of the 1989 Children Act are framed within a context of ‘needs’ rather than ‘rights’, and accessed through identifying ‘deficiency’ rather than ‘strengths’ (Jones et al., 2002: 4; see also Diduck, 1999). ‘Approaches based on unexplored assumptions that the children of disabled parents are always “children in need” or “children at risk” can lead to disempowering outcomes for both parents and children’ (Jones et al., 2002: 31). Only those ‘defined’ as ‘in need’ are entitled to access to services for young carers. The important distinction between having needs and being in need runs the risk of getting lost.
Conclusion and outlook
Drawing on empirical studies on children involved in family care arrangements, care-giving by children has been discussed in terms of vulnerability and agency. Emphasis was put on empirical findings of family life and family understanding. These have been discussed in terms of interdependency and reciprocity. Children’s ‘choice’ to be involved in care arrangements has been analysed as limited not only by specific cultural, familial, socioeconomic and structural factors, such as poverty and sexual and ethnic discrimination, but also by their social status as minors in society. It has been shown that the needs of children and young people can hardly be separated from the needs of others who are important to them as family members. The views and visions of these young people are formed within the confines of the possibilities and services that seem open to them (Jones et al., 2002). Their sense of responsibility expressed in action and word is mediated by the moral status of childhood and by the hierarchy of power in the parent–child relationship. Their understanding of reciprocal and interdependent relationships has been discussed to be more complex and comprehensive than is conceded to children in legal and social political frameworks.
From the analysis of the empirical findings discussed in this article it can be concluded that both children and their (impaired) parents are not only aware of the dominant notions associated with parenthood and adult status but that they are constantly negotiating and reflecting their own situation against the predominant understanding of unidirectional responsibility of parents for their children. Children with caring responsibilities outrun this concept. Based on a vision of a unidirectional relationship between parents’ responsibilities and children’s rights, there appears to be no room in Western European family policy for an understanding of reciprocity, interactivity and negotiation of rights and responsibilities between parent and child. It is also the underlying dichotomous understanding of either welfare or citizenship, of either dependence or independence that is thereby contributing to the codification of children’s dependency.
At the same time, taking a global perspective we find a growing number of households temporarily or chronically headed by children. The theme ‘children left behind’ (Children Left Behind, 2009) groups children whose parent or parents have migrated and left their children behind to stay with one parent or with other relatives, like grandparents, as increasingly observed in Eastern Europe (Christian Science Monitor, 2007; The New York Times, 2009). It also groups HIV/AIDS orphans, i.e. children whose parent or parents have died due to the disease and are now either staying with a relative or heading the household by themselves (Robson, 2000; Robson et al., 2006). A special group of children are children migrating alone and unaccompanied minor refugees. These do not necessarily shoulder responsibility for others but for their own livelihood at an age legally considered too early. The global perspective has not been the focus of this article. As the discussion of the findings concerning children with responsibility in family care arrangements in the UK and Germany has shown, it would be a worthwhile endeavour.
An analysis of contemporary childhood and everyday experiences of children that parts from the idea of reciprocal and interdependent relationships is suggested by Cockburn (2005). He discusses children as social actors involved in a variety of different relationships with their parents, teachers and other adults, with their siblings, friends and other children, creating a complex net of social ties. The perspective Cockburn refers to is termed ethic of care. It emphasizes responsibilities, practices, customs, emotions and activities, and pays attention to context. Diduck (1999) can be read as heading for a similar direction. She argues for an integrated approach in justice that pays attention to the connectedness of the subject to others and their duties, as well as to their individual rights. The underlying aim is to challenge ‘the hegemony of notions of autonomy which exclude reciprocity or dependence, and of notions of welfare and dependence which exclude individual agency or political citizenship’ (Diduck, 1999: 133), with far-reaching consequences for the adult–child relation. This, however, seems a ‘daunting task’ (Morrow, 2008). Reconceptualizing child–adult relations as interdependent is complex and a challenge, especially because recent social policies appear to be solidly based on the idea that children are developing, future ‘becomings’, needing at the same time increasing amounts of education and greater surveillance and control (Morrow, 2008).
Modern societies are currently faced with the need to find answers to the relationship between children’s rights and children’s responsibilities. The question is left open as to what extent children and young people can be responsible for themselves and others. ‘Responsibility and the ability to cope with responsibility are construed as attributes of adulthood, which means that, since citizenship entails responsibility, children are largely denied a participatory role in the political sphere’ (Such and Walker, 2005: 43). In this article, responsibility in terms of care-giving has been discussed as a meaningful and everyday aspect of many children’s lives. To shy away from recognizing this is to silence children. Even more so, it is binding them to the specific cultural understanding of dependency and incompetence. ‘In other words it serves to deny children social citizenship’ (Such and Walker, 2005: 55).
Footnotes
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.