homeworking gov

Discover the latest MyICAEW app for ACA students and members, available to download now. Find out more

• Benefits of membership

Gain access to world-leading information resources, guidance and local networks.

• Visit Benefits of membership

Becoming a member

98% of the best global brands rely on ICAEW Chartered Accountants.

• Visit Becoming a member
• Pay fees and subscriptions

Your membership subscription enables ICAEW to provide support to members.

Fees and subscriptions

Member rewards.

Take advantage of the range of value added or discounted member benefits.

• Member rewards – More from your membership
• Technical and ethics support
• Support throughout your career

Information and resources for every stage of your career.

Member Insights Survey

Let us know about the issues affecting you, your business and your clients.

• Complete the survey

From software start-ups to high-flying airlines and high street banks, 98% of the best global brands rely on ICAEW Chartered Accountants. A career as an ICAEW Chartered Accountant means the opportunity to work in any organisation, in any sector, whatever your ambitions.

Everything you need to know about ICAEW annual membership fees, community and faculty subscriptions, eligibility for reduced rates and details of how you can pay.

Membership administration

Welcome to the ICAEW members area: your portal to members'-only content, offers, discounts, regulations and membership information.

• Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is an integral part of being a successful ICAEW Chartered Accountant.

The ICAEW Chartered Accountant qualification, the ACA, is one of the most advanced learning and professional development programmes available. It is valued around the world in business, practice and the public sector.

ACA for employers

Train the next generation of chartered accountants in your business or organisation. Discover how your organisation can attract, train and retain the best accountancy talent, how to become authorised to offer ACA training and the support and guidance on offer if you are already providing training.

Digital learning materials via BibliU

All ACA, ICAEW CFAB and Level 4 apprenticeship learning materials are now digital only. Read our guide on how to access your learning materials on the ICAEW Bookshelf using the BibliU app or through your browser.

• Find out more

Take a look at ICAEW training films

Focusing on professional scepticism, ethics and everyday business challenges, our training films are used by firms and companies around the world to support their in-house training and business development teams.

Attract and retain the next generation of accounting and finance professionals with our world-leading accountancy qualifications. Become authorised to offer ACA training and help your business stay ahead.

CPD guidance and help

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is an integral part of being a successful ICAEW Chartered Accountant. Find support on ICAEW's CPD requirements and access resources to help your professional development.

ICAEW flagship events

ICAEW boasts an extensive portfolio of industry-leading conferences. These flagship events offer the opportunity to hear from and interact with all the key players in the industry. Find out what's coming up.

Leadership Development Programmes

ICAEW Academy’s in-depth leadership development programmes take a holistic approach to combine insightful mentoring or coaching, to exclusive events, peer learning groups and workshops. Catering for those significant transitions in your career, these leadership development programmes are instrumental to achieving your ambitions or fulfilling your succession planning goals.

Specialist Finance Qualifications & Programmes

Whatever future path you choose, ICAEW will support the development and acceleration of your career at each stage to enhance your career.

Why a career in chartered accountancy?

If you think chartered accountants spend their lives confined to their desks, then think again. They are sitting on the boards of multinational companies, testifying in court and advising governments, as well as supporting charities and businesses from every industry all over the world.

• Why chartered accountancy?

Search for qualified ACA jobs

Matching highly skilled ICAEW members with attractive organisations seeking talented accountancy and finance professionals.

Volunteering roles

Helping skilled and in-demand chartered accountants give back and strengthen not-for-profit sector with currently over 2,300 organisations posting a variety of volunteering roles with ICAEW.

• Search for volunteer roles
• Get ahead by volunteering

Advertise with ICAEW

From as little as £495, access to a pool of highly qualified and ambitious ACA qualified members with searchable CVs.

Early careers and training

Start your ACA training with ICAEW. Find out why a career in chartered accountancy could be for you and how to become a chartered accountant.

Qualified ACA careers

Find Accountancy and Finance Jobs

Voluntary roles

Find Voluntary roles

While you pursue the most interesting and rewarding opportunities at every stage of your career, we’re here to offer you support whatever stage you are or wherever you are in the world and in whichever sector you have chosen to work.

ACA students

"how to guides" for aca students.

• ACA student guide
• How to book an exam
• How to apply for credit for prior learning (CPL)

Exam resources

Here are some resources you will find useful while you study for the ACA qualification.

• Certificate Level
• Professional Level
• Advanced Level

Digital learning materials

All ACA learning materials are now digital only. Read our guide on how to access your learning materials on the ICAEW Bookshelf via the BibliU app, or through your browser.

• Read the guide

My online training file

Once you are registered as an ACA student, you'll be able to access your training file to log your progress throughout ACA training.

• Access your training file
• Student Insights

Fresh insights, innovative ideas and an inside look at the lives and careers of our ICAEW students and members.

• Read the latest articles

System status checks

Getting started.

Welcome to ICAEW! We have pulled together a selection of resources to help you get started with your ACA training, including our popular 'How To' series, which offers step-by-step guidance on everything from registering as an ACA student and applying for CPL, to using your online training file.

Credit for prior learning (CPL)

Credit for prior learning or CPL is our term for exemptions. High quality learning and assessment in other relevant qualifications is appropriately recognised by the award of CPL.

Apply for exams

What you need to know in order to apply for the ACA exams.

The ACA qualification has 15 modules over three levels. They are designed to complement the practical experience you will be gaining in the workplace. They will also enable you to gain in-depth knowledge across a broad range of topics in accountancy, finance and business. Here are some useful resources while you study.

• Exam results

You will receive your results for all Certificate Level exams, the day after you take the exam and usually five weeks after a Professional and Advanced Level exam session has taken place. Access your latest and archived exam results here.

Training agreement

Putting your theory work into practice is essential to complete your ACA training.

Student support and benefits

We are here to support you throughout your ACA journey. We have a range of resources and services on offer for you to unwrap, from exam resources, to student events and discount cards. Make sure you take advantage of the wealth of exclusive benefits available to you, all year round.

• Applying for membership

The ACA will open doors to limitless opportunities in all areas of accountancy, business and finance anywhere in the world. ICAEW Chartered Accountants work at the highest levels as finance directors, CEOs and partners of some of the world’s largest organisations.

ACA training FAQs

Do you have a question about the ACA training? Then look no further. Here, you can find answers to frequently asked questions relating to the ACA qualification and training. Find out more about each of the integrated components of the ACA, as well as more information on the syllabus, your training agreement, ICAEW’s rules and regulations and much more.

• Anti-money laundering

Guidance and resources to help members comply with their legal and professional responsibilities around AML.

Technical releases

ICAEW Technical Releases are a source of good practice guidance on technical and practice issues relevant to ICAEW Chartered Accountants and other finance professionals.

• ICAEW Technical Releases
• Thought leadership

ICAEW's Thought Leadership reports provide clarity and insight on the current and future challenges to the accountancy profession. Our charitable trusts also provide funding for academic research into accountancy.

• Academic research funding

Technical Advisory Services helpsheets

Practical, technical and ethical guidance highlighting the most important issues for members, whether in practice or in business.

• ICAEW Technical Advisory Services helpsheets

Bloomsbury – free for eligible firms

In partnership with Bloomsbury Professional, ICAEW have provided eligible firms with free access to Bloomsbury’s comprehensive online library of around 80 titles from leading tax and accounting subject matter experts.

• Bloomsbury Accounting and Tax Service

Country resources

Our resources by country provide access to intelligence on over 170 countries and territories including economic forecasts, guides to doing business and information on the tax climate in each jurisdiction.

Industries and sectors

Thought leadership, technical resources and professional guidance to support the professional development of members working in specific industries and sectors.

Audit and Assurance

The audit, assurance and internal audit area has information and guidance on technical and practical matters in relation to these three areas of practice. There are links to events, publications, technical help and audit representations.

The most up-to-date thought leadership, insights, technical resources and professional guidance to support ICAEW members working in and with industry with their professional development.

• Corporate Finance

Companies, advisers and investors making decisions about creating, developing and acquiring businesses – and the wide range of advisory careers that require this specialist professional expertise.

• Corporate governance

Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled. Find out more about corporate governance principles, codes and reports, Board subcommittees, roles and responsibilities and shareholder relations. Corporate governance involves balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, management, customers, suppliers, financiers and the community. Getting governance right is essential to build public trust in companies.

Corporate reporting

View a range of practical resources on UK GAAP, IFRS, UK regulation for company accounts and non-financial reporting. Plus find out more about the ICAEW Corporate Reporting Faculty.

Expert analysis on the latest national and international economic issues and trends, and interviews with prominent voices across the finance industry, alongside data on the state of the economy.

• Financial Services

View articles and resources on the financial services sector.

• Practice resources

For ICAEW's members in practice, this area brings together the most up-to-date thought leadership, technical resources and professional guidance to help you in your professional life.

Public Sector

Many ICAEW members work in or with the public sector to deliver public priorities and strong public finances. ICAEW acts in the public interest to support strong financial leadership and better financial management across the public sector – featuring transparency, accountability, governance and ethics – to ensure that public money is spent wisely and that public finances are sustainable.

Sustainability and climate change

Sustainability describes a world that does not live by eating into its capital, whether natural, economic or social. Members in practice, in business and private individuals all have a role to play if sustainability goals are to be met. The work being undertaken by ICAEW in this area is to change behaviour to drive sustainable outcomes.

The Tax area has information and guidance on technical and practical tax matters. There are links to events, the latest tax news and the Tax Faculty’s publications, including helpsheets, webinars and Tax representations.

Keep up-to-date with tech issues and developments, including artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, big data, and cyber security.

Trust & Ethics

Guidance and resources on key issues, including economic crime, business law, better regulation and ethics. Read through ICAEW’s Code of Ethics and supporting information.

Communities

ICAEW Communities

Information, guidance and networking opportunities on industry sectors, professional specialisms and at various stages throughout your career. Free for ICAEW members and students.

• Discover a new community

ICAEW Faculties

The accountancy profession is facing change and uncertainty. The ICAEW Faculties can help by providing you with timely and relevant support.

• Choose to join any of the faculties

UK groups and societies

We have teams on the ground in: East of England, the Midlands, London and South East, Northern, South West, Yorkshire and Humberside, Wales and Scotland.

• Access your UK region
• Worldwide support and services

Support and services we offer our members in Africa, America, Canada, the Caribbean, Europe, Greater China, the Middle East, Oceania and South East Asia.

• Discover our services

ICAEW Faculties are 'centres of technical excellence', strongly committed to enhancing your professional development and helping you to meet your CPD requirements every year. They offer exclusive content, events and webinars, customised for your sector - which you should be able to easily record, when the time comes for the completion of your CPD declaration. Our offering isn't exclusive to Institute members. As a faculty member, the same resources are available to you to ensure you stay ahead of the competition.

Communities by industry / sector

Communities by life stage and workplace, communities by professional specialism, local groups and societies.

We aim to support you wherever in the world you work. Our regional offices and network of volunteers run events and provide access to local accounting updates in major finance centres around the globe.

• Ukraine crisis: central resource hub

Learn about the actions that ICAEW members are taking to ensure that their clients comply with sanctions imposed by different countries and jurisdictions, and read about the support available from ICAEW.

Insights pulls together the best opinion, analysis, interviews, videos and podcasts on the key issues affecting accountancy and business.

• See the latest insights
• Making COP count

This series looks at the role the accountancy profession can play in addressing the climate crisis and building a sustainable economy.

• Read more on COP28

Professional development and skills

With new requirements on ICAEW members for continuing professional development, we bring together resources to support you through the changes and look at the skills accountants need for the future.

• Visit the hub

When Chartered Accountants Save The World

Find out how chartered accountants are helping to tackle some of the most urgent social challenges within the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and explore how the profession could do even more.

• Read our major series

Insights specials

A listing of one-off Insights specials that focus on a particular subject, interviewing the key people, identifying developing trends and examining the underlying issues.

Top podcasts

Insights by topic.

ICAEW Regulation

• Regulatory News

View the latest regulatory updates and guidance and subscribe to our monthly newsletter, Regulatory & Conduct News.

• Regulatory Consultations

Strengthening trust in the profession

Our role as a world-leading improvement regulator is to strengthen trust and protect the public. We do this by enabling, evaluating and enforcing the highest standards in the profession. 

Regulatory applications

Find out how you can become authorised by ICAEW as a regulated firm. 

ICAEW codes and regulations

Professional conduct and complaints, statutory regulated services overseen by icaew, regulations for icaew practice members and firms, additional guidance and support, popular search results.

• Training File
• Practice Exam Software
• Ethics Cpd Course
• Routes to the ACA
• ACA students membership application
• Join as a member of another body
• How much are membership fees?
• How to pay your fees
• Receipts and invoices
• What if my circumstances have changed?
• Difficulties in making changes to your membership
• Faculty and community subscription fees
• Updating your details
• Complete annual return
• Promoting myself as an ICAEW member
• Verification of ICAEW membership
• Become a life member
• Become a fellow
• Request a new certificate
• Report the death of a member
• Membership regulations
• New members
• Career progression
• Career Breakers
• Volunteering at schools and universities
• ICAEW Member App
• Working internationally
• Self employment
• Support Members Scheme
• CPD is changing
• CPD learning resources
• Your guide to CPD
• Online CPD record
• How to become a chartered accountant
• Register as a student
• Train as a member of another body
• More about the ACA and chartered accountancy
• How ACA training works
• Become a training employer
• Access the training file
• Why choose the ACA
• Training routes
• Employer support hub
• Get in touch
• Apprenticeships with ICAEW
• A-Z of CPD courses by topic
• ICAEW Business and Finance Professional (BFP)
• ICAEW Annual Conference 2024
• Audit & Assurance Conference 2024
• Restructuring & Insolvency Conference
• Virtual CPD Conference
• Virtual Healthcare Conference 2024
• All our flagship events
• Financial Talent Executive Network (F-TEN®)
• Developing Leadership in Practice (DLiP™)
• Network of Finance Leaders (NFL)
• Women in Leadership (WiL)
• Mentoring and coaching
• Partners in Learning
• Board Director's Programme e-learning
• Corporate Finance Qualification
• Diploma in Charity Accounting
• ICAEW Certificate in Insolvency
• ICAEW Data Analytics Certificate
• Financial Modeling Institute’s Advanced Financial Modeler Accreditation
• ICAEW Sustainability Certificate for Finance Professionals
• ICAEW Finance in a Digital World Programme
• All specialist qualifications
• Team training
• Start your training
• Improve your employability
• Search employers
• Find a role
• Role alerts
• Organisations
• Practice support – 11 ways ICAEW and CABA can help you
• News and advice
• ICAEW Volunteering Hub
• Support in becoming a chartered accountant
• Vacancies at ICAEW
• ICAEW boards and committees
• Exam system status
• ICAEW systems: status update
• Changes to our qualifications
• How-to guides for ACA students
• Apply for credits - Academic qualification
• Apply for credits - Professional qualification
• Credit for prior learning (CPL)/exemptions FAQs
• Applications for Professional and Advanced Level exams
• Applications for Certificate Level exams
• Tuition providers
• Latest exam results
• Archived exam results
• Getting your results
• Marks feedback service
• Exam admin check
• Training agreement: overview
• Professional development
• Ethics and professional scepticism
• Practical work experience
• Access your online training file
• How training works in your country
• Student rewards
• TOTUM PRO Card
• Student events and volunteering
• Xero cloud accounting certifications
• Student support
• Join a community
• Wellbeing support from caba
• Student mentoring programme
• Student conduct and behaviour
• Code of ethics
• Fit and proper
• Level 4 Accounting Technician Apprenticeship
• Level 7 Accountancy Professional Apprenticeship
• AAT-ACA Fast Track FAQs
• ACA rules and regulations FAQs
• ACA syllabus FAQs
• ACA training agreement FAQs
• Audit experience and the Audit Qualification FAQs
• Independent student FAQs
• Practical work experience FAQs
• Professional development FAQs
• Six-monthly reviews FAQs
• Ethics and professional scepticism FAQs
• Greater China
• Latin America
• Middle East
• North America
• Australasia
• Russia and Eurasia
• South East Asia
• Charity Community
• Construction & Real Estate
• Energy & Natural Resources Community
• Farming & Rural Business Community
• Forensic & Expert Witness
• Global Trade Community
• Healthcare Community
• Internal Audit Community
• Manufacturing Community
• Media & Leisure
• Portfolio Careers Community
• Small and Micro Business Community
• Small Practitioners Community
• Travel, Tourism & Hospitality Community
• Valuation Community
• Audit and corporate governance reform
• Audit & Assurance Faculty
• Professional judgement
• Regulation and working in audit
• Internal audit resource centre
• ICAEW acting on audit quality
• Everything business
• Latest Business news from Insights
• Strategy, risk and innovation
• Business performance management
• Financial management
• Finance transformation
• Economy and business environment
• Leadership, personal development and HR
• Webinars and publications
• Business restructuring
• The Business Finance Guide
• Capital markets and investment
• Corporate finance careers
• Corporate Finance Faculty
• Debt advisory and growth finance
• Mergers and acquisitions
• Private equity
• Start-ups, scale-ups and venture capital
• Transaction services
• Board committees and board effectiveness
• Corporate governance codes and reports
• Corporate Governance Community
• Principles of corporate governance
• Roles, duties and responsibilities of Board members
• Stewardship and stakeholder relations
• Corporate Governance thought leadership
• Corporate reporting resources
• Small and micro entity reporting
• UK Regulation for Company Accounts
• Non-financial reporting
• Improving Corporate Reporting
• Economy home
• ICAEW Business Confidence Monitor
• ICAEW Manifesto 2024
• Energy crisis
• Levelling up: rebalancing the UK’s economy
• Resilience and Renewal: Building an economy fit for the future
• Social mobility and inclusion
• Autumn Statement 2023
• Investment management
• Inspiring confidence
• Setting up in practice
• Running your practice
• Supporting your clients
• Practice technology
• TAS helpsheets
• Support for business advisers
• Join ICAEW BAS
• Public Sector hub
• Public Sector Audit and Assurance
• Public Sector Finances
• Public Sector Financial Management
• Public Sector Financial Reporting
• Public Sector Learning & Development
• Public Sector Community
• Latest public sector articles from Insights
• Climate hub
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Accountability
• Modern slavery
• Resources collection
• Sustainability Committee
• Sustainability & Climate Change community
• Sustainability and climate change home
• Tax Faculty
• Budgets and legislation
• Business tax
• Devolved taxes
• Employment taxes
• International taxes
• Making Tax Digital
• Personal tax
• Property tax
• Stamp duty land tax
• Tax administration
• Tax compliance and investigation
• UK tax rates, allowances and reliefs
• Artificial intelligence
• Blockchain and cryptoassets
• Cyber security
• Data Analytics Community
• Digital skills
• Excel community
• Finance in a Digital World
• IT management
• Technology and the profession
• Trust & Ethics home
• Better regulation
• Business Law
• UK company law
• Data protection and privacy
• Economic crime
• Help with ethical problems
• ICAEW Code of Ethics
• ICAEW Trust and Ethics team.....
• Solicitors Community
• Forensic & Expert Witness Community
• Latest articles on business law, trust and ethics
• Audit and Assurance Faculty
• Corporate Reporting Faculty
• Financial Services Faculty
• Academia & Education Community
• Construction & Real Estate Community
• Entertainment, Sport & Media Community
• Retail Community
• Career Breakers Community
• Black Members Community
• Diversity & Inclusion Community
• Women in Finance Community
• Personal Financial Planning Community
• Restructuring & Insolvency Community
• Sustainability and Climate Change Community
• London and East
• South Wales
• Yorkshire and Humberside
• European public policy activities
• ICAEW Middle East

Latest news

• The World’s Fastest Accountant
• Access to finance special
• Attractiveness of the profession
• Audit and Fraud
• Audit and technology
• Adopting non-financial reporting standards
• Cost of doing business
• Mental health and wellbeing
• Pensions and Personal Finance
• More specials ...
• The economics of biodiversity
• How chartered accountants can help to safeguard trust in society
• Video: The financial controller who stole £20,000 from her company
• It’s time for chartered accountants to save the world
• Video: The CFO who tried to trick the market
• Video: Could invoice fraud affect your business?
• Company size thresholds and CGT on residences
• Lessons in leadership from ICAEW's CEO
• So you want to be a leader?
• A busy new tax year, plus progress on the Economic Crime Act
• Does Britain have a farming problem?
• Budget 2024: does it change anything?
• Will accountants save the world? With ICAEW CEO Michael Izza
• Crunch time: VAT (or not) on poppadoms
• Where next for audit and governance reform?
• A taxing year ahead?
• What can we expect from 2024?
• More podcasts...
• Top charts of the week
• EU and international trade
• CEO and President's insights
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Sponsored content
• Insights index
• Charter and Bye-laws
• Archive of complaints, disciplinary and fitness processes, statutory regulations and ICAEW regulations
• Qualifications regulations
• Training and education regulations
• How to make a complaint
• Guidance on your duty to report misconduct
• Public hearings
• What to do if you receive a complaint against you
• Anti-money laundering supervision
• Working in the regulated area of audit
• Local public audit in England
• Probate services
• Designated Professional Body (Investment Business) licence
• Consumer credit
• Quality Assurance monitoring: view from the firms
• The ICAEW Practice Assurance scheme
• Licensed Practice scheme
• Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII)
• Clients' Money Regulations
• Taxation (PCRT) Regulations
• ICAEW training films
• Helpsheets and guidance by topic
• ICAEW's regulatory expertise and history
• Latest tax news
• Tax news from January 2023

Working from home tax relief claims may still be possible for 2022/23

Published: 18 Jan 2023 Update History

Two relaxations were introduced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns to allow millions of employees to claim tax relief for the costs of working from home during the 2020/21 and 2021/22 tax years. These were:

• the relaxation of the strict eligibility requirements; and
• allowing relief to be claimed for the full year, even if there was a full or partial return to working at the employer’s location during the tax year.

From the current tax year 2022/23 onwards, employees who are eligible can still make a claim for tax relief for working from home. The claim can be made in self assessment (SA) returns, online , or on a paper P87 form .

The amount that can be claimed is £6 per week (£26 per calendar month), or actual evidenced amounts incurred on electricity and gas relating to the work area and business phone calls, as a deduction against earnings in respect of the weeks worked from home. A claim for the full tax year is no longer automatic.

Another key difference from 6 April 2022 for employees in England and other parts of the UK that did not continue COVID-19 working from home restrictions into 2022/23, is that the very strict eligibility requirements of s336, Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003) apply.

These tests are summarised in HMRC’s guidance, at: 

• Claim tax relief for your job expenses - working from home
• EIM32760: Other expenses: home: working from home
• EIM32815: Other expenses: home: household expenses

For example, employees are not eligible to claim a deduction if they have chosen to work at home. Also, even if the contract allows the employee to work from home for some, or all of the time, no deduction can be claimed if the employer has appropriate facilities to allow the employee to work at the employer’s premises. An exception to this is where the nature of the job requires the employee to live so far from the employer’s premises that it is unreasonable to expect them to travel to those premises on a daily basis.

If making a claim for actual expenditure, a deduction is not allowed if the amounts are not wholly incurred in the performance of the employment (eg, costs of broadband that is used privately as well as for the employment).

It is not too late for employees to make a claim for 2020/21 and 2021/22. SA returns that have been submitted can be amended within twelve months of the filing deadline. HMRC’s portal allows backdated claims for up to four years.

• agents cannot file claims online, but can submit a paper form;
• claims cannot be made by phone;
• employees in SA must claim via their SA tax returns, and
• a claim cannot be made where the allowance (or reimbursement of evidenced amounts incurred) is paid to the employee by their employer, which would be tax-free under s316A, ITEPA 2003 , see HMRC’s guidance Expenses & benefits: homeworking .

The Tax Faculty

ICAEW's Tax Faculty is recognised internationally as a leading authority and source of expertise on taxation. The faculty is the voice of tax for ICAEW, responsible for all submissions to the tax authorities. Join the Faculty for expert guidance and support enabling you to provide the best advice on tax to your clients or business.

• Learn more about the Tax Faculty
• Join the faculty

More support on tax

ICAEW's Tax Faculty provides technical guidance and practical support on tax practice and policy. You can sign up to the Tax Faculty's free enewsletter (TAXwire) which provides weekly updates on developments in tax.

More from the Tax Faculty

Stay up to date with the latest developments in tax by signing up to the Tax Faculty's weekly e-newsletter

Practical guidance

Comprehensive support for Tax practitioners each month from the Tax Faculty and expert contributors.

Technical support

Expert advice from the Tax Faculty's technical managers on all the developments in tax policy and practice.

Read out this code to the operator.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Homeworking, Well-Being and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Diary Study

Stephen james wood.

1 University of Leicester Business School, Leicester LE2 1RQ, UK

George Michaelides

2 Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK; [email protected] (G.M.); [email protected] (K.D.)

Ilke Inceoglu

3 University of Exeter Business School, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK; [email protected]

Elizabeth T. Hurren

4 School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK; ku.ca.retseciel@041he

Kevin Daniels

Karen niven.

5 Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK; [email protected]

Associated Data

Data are available from the corresponding author.

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments encouraged or mandated homeworking wherever possible. This study examines the impact of this public health initiative on homeworkers’ well-being. It explores if the general factors such as job autonomy, demands, social support and work–nonwork conflict, which under normal circumstances are crucial for employees’ well-being, are outweighed by factors specific to homeworking and the pandemic as predictors of well-being. Using data from four-week diary studies conducted at two time periods in 2020 involving university employees in the UK, we assessed five factors that may be associated with their well-being: job characteristics, the work–home interface, home location, the enforced nature of the homeworking, and the pandemic context. Multi-level analysis confirms the relationship between four of the five factors and variability in within-person well-being, the exception being variables connected to the enforced homeworking. The results are very similar in both waves. A smaller set of variables explained between-person variability: psychological detachment, loneliness and job insecurity in both periods. Well-being was lower in the second than the first wave, as loneliness increased and the ability to detach from work declined. The findings highlight downsides of homeworking, will be relevant for employees’ and employers’ decisions about working arrangements post-pandemic, and contribute to the debate about the limits of employee well-being models centred on job characteristics.

1. Introduction

Stay-at-home has been a central plank of many governments’ responses to COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. Employers have been encouraged or mandated to instigate homeworking, wherever possible, for all but key workers who were required to maintain essential services. This paper reports a study of the factors associated with the well-being of employees in the first part of the pandemic. The research assesses the influence of a range of factors that might explain the well-being of homeworking employees during the pandemic, in order to identify the most important drivers of well-being during this exceptional period.

We initially distinguish between factors that are generally seen as the key to work-related well-being: firstly, job characteristics such as job autonomy, demands and social support, and secondly factors associated with work–family or nonwork interface such as work–non work and the ability to detach from work. We then differentiate factors that are specific to homeworking during the pandemic, such as feelings of isolation and not being able to work normally. Next, we demarcate factors connected to the enforced nature of homeworking in the pandemic, such as the lack of preparedness for it or childcaring responsibilities resulting from the closure of schools or nurseries. Finally, we identify factors that are the result of the pandemic and its management, other than the widespread use of homeworking, that is fears of acquiring COVID-19 and the job insecurity consequent upon measures taken by the government to combat the pandemic that reduce economic activity.

The purpose of the study is to assess the impact of these five factors on well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rationale behind the study is that if general factors (e.g., job demands and autonomy) are the strongest predictors of well-being, this would suggest that homeworking per se is not a particularly dominant influence on well-being. Conversely, if homeworking factors emerge as strong predictors of well-being, over and above factors relating to the pandemic and/or general factors, this suggests that the location of work is important in shaping workers’ well-being. The additional possibility is that factors associated with the enforced nature of the homeworking and other pandemic-specific factors have the strongest influence; if they do, we can conclude that well-being in the pandemic is distinctive, and we cannot therefore generalise from these results to other homeworking contexts.

The study adds value to our knowledge on a variety of issues. First, it gives a fresh dimension to homeworking studies by focusing on well-being and isolating homeworking-specific factors from others. Second, it contributes to the creation of the story of how the world coped during the pandemic. Third, the results have immediate relevance for developing policy as employers, employees and governments will be making decisions about the future of homeworking as we emerge out of the pandemic. There has been considerable discussion of how the pandemic will accelerate trends that are already underway, in which digital developments and remote working are central [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Such judgements about homeworking’s future or desirability, which tend towards treating its growth as inevitable, are typically based on assumptions about homeworkers’ current satisfaction with homeworking and the lack of any negative performance effects, with little consideration being given to the impact on employees’ well-being [ 2 , 5 , 6 ]. The satisfaction of employees with homeworking may be influenced by their well-being but these will not necessarily coincide. Well-being is a more telling employee outcome against which to gauge future policies and is especially important if the downsides of homeworking–such as social isolation or the inability to detach from work–are the primary influences on well-being. Finally, the results of such a study may, as we have said, expose the dangers of generalising from the experience of homeworkers in the pandemic. While, as commentators have said, the pandemic has provided a laboratory for studying homeworking, we cannot assume its yield will be as strong as is implied by this observation.

In the first part of the paper, we outline more fully the conceptual background to our study and our hypotheses, which focus on the five types of factors we have identified and their relationship to well-being. In the second part of the paper, we report the results of the study we conducted to test the hypotheses, before concluding with an assessment of the significance of our five factors.

2. Theoretical Focus and Hypothesized Relationships

We define mental well-being, following Sonnentag [ 7 ] p. 263, as the “experience of feeling good and/or feeling authentic and meaningful in one’s life”. This covers both the hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions of well-being, the former being the presence of positive affect and absence of negative affect, the latter concerned with the achievement of one’s potential and a meaningful life.

Analysis of well-being at work has concentrated on job characteristics, and particularly those defined by Karasek’s demands, control and supports model [ 8 , 9 ], and on work–family conflict when the work–family interface is considered. The Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model has emerged as a general framework which encompasses these and a broader range of potential influences [ 10 , 11 ]. In the original version of the theory, demands and resources are defined by their effects. Job demands are those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job associated with adverse health and well-being impairments; any decrease in these is likely to promote well-being through reducing psychological strain. Job resources in contrast stimulate employees’ personal growth and improve motivation and engagement [ 10 ]. This dualistic JD–R theory, which was originally focused on predicting the outcomes of burnout and engagement, has been tested on a variety of psychological states, including such accepted dimensions of well-being as depression, psychological strain and happiness [ 7 ]. However, research has not always supported this dualistic model. In particular, resources have been shown to be related to well-being measures and not just engagement [ 12 ]. Moreover, a rigid designation of phenomena as being either resources or demands may not hold in all circumstances. For example, autonomy, skill use and role clarity can be demands or resources depending on their level [ 13 ]. We thus follow Schaufeli and Taris [ 14 ] and identify demands and resources by how they are valued by individuals. Demands are negatively valued and resources positively valued. We assume that positively valued factors have a positive impact on well-being and negatively valued ones have a negative effect and use prior research to identify what employees value [ 15 ]. Adopting this approach, we now identify the factors that we expect to predict well-being amongst homeworkers during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

2.1. Job Characteristics

At the job level, we assume that if these dominate the explanation of well-being during the periods of study, working at home has no substantial effects that are specific to it, and equally there is no strong COVID-19 effect. Following Karasek’s triad of job autonomy, demands and support and the emphasis placed on these by JD–R theory, we anticipate autonomy and social support will be valued by employees, regardless of how COVID-19 affected them. Thus:

Job autonomy is positively associated with well-being.

Social support is positively associated with well-being.

In the case of job demands, we consider both the quantitative workload, measured in terms of hours worked, and the qualitative workload, the intensity of the job demands, both of which are assumed to be negatively valued. We thus test:

Hours worked are negatively associated with well-being.

Job demands are negatively associated with well-being.

2.2. Work–Home Interface

In examining the work–home interface we follow the emphasis on work–nonwork interference or conflict which reflects the way work may intrude into home life or home life may infringe on work life. The effects of such interference on well-being may be direct and result in stress-based conflict, or indirect through conflicting time pressures involving juggling between competing demands that result in time-based conflict. We use the term work–nonwork conflict in preference to ‘work–family conflict’ or ‘work–home conflict’ to avoid the association of nonwork with caring and parenting and to allow for work interfering with leisure [ 16 ]. Additionally, we use the term work–nonwork conflict when talking in general terms, and work-to-nonwork conflict and nonwork-to-work conflict when referring to the specific direction of the conflict. JD–R theorists typically treat work–nonwork interference as a demand, but to be more accurate it reflects competing demands and the blurring of the boundary between work and home, both of which enhance work–nonwork conflict [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], and we expect it will reduce well-being [ 20 , 21 ].

Moreover, we expect the ability to detach from work psychologically to have an effect on well-being independently of the level of interference. Detachment is not simply the inverse of conflict; it refers to the cognitive separation of oneself from work. Thus, Etzion, et al. [ 22 ] p. 579 term it “an ‘individual’s sense of being away from the work situation”. As Sonnentag [ 23 ] p. 172 says, it “implies not only refraining from performing job-related tasks, but also mentally disconnecting from the job during non-work time”. It is a resource which fulfils the need for recovery from work [ 24 , 25 , 26 ] and can facilitate employees’ growth and intrinsic satisfaction. Studies have found strong positive effects on well-being, as well as life satisfaction [ 27 , 28 ]. The inability to detach is thus a general problem facing all employees and not specific to homeworking, though its level may be higher during homeworking, as the literature on the constant connectivity induced by internet technology has highlighted [ 29 , 30 ]. Being able to detach oneself from work will be positively valued by employees and hence positively related to well-being:

Work-to-nonwork conflict is negatively related to well-being.

Nonwork-to-work conflict is negatively related to well-being.

Psychological detachment from work is positively related to well-being.

2.3. Homeworking

We identify two key homeworking-specific factors that may affect well-being. First, there is the extent to which work has diverged from the normal working pattern, which we expect will be negatively related to well-being. This is because we anticipate that working at home will, at least initially, create anxiety about one’s ability to cope with the divergence and a new working environment. Second, there is the potential for homeworkers to feel isolated from work colleagues or more generally lonely. Loneliness, defined by Cacioppo, et al. [ 31 ] p. 1055 as “a complex set of feelings that occurs when intimate and social needs are not adequately met”, is the main downside of homeworking identified in the empirical studies prior to the pandemic [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. We expect loneliness to be negatively valued, and thus test:

Divergence from normal working patterns is negatively related to well-being.

Loneliness is negatively related to well-being.

2.4. Enforced Homeworking

We assume that homeworking in normal circumstances is typically designed to fit within the routine of people’s lives. For example, a parent may work at home when grandparents are visiting or looking after the children. The enforced nature of the homeworking during the pandemic may restrict employees’ choices and make this harmonious design difficult, resulting in demands that are negatively valued by employees. The speed at which the initial lockdowns were implemented, in most countries, meant there was little opportunity for employers and employees to prepare for homeworking, and to establish and coordinate working practices.

The first factor we consider is care responsibilities; in particular, responsibilities towards childcare, enforced home schooling, and the confinement of children at home created demands that homeworking in normal times may not. These constrain employees’ ability to accomplish their work demands and will be negatively valued.

A second factor is the provision or quality of information and communication technology (ICT), which may constrain people’s ability to work at home under these enforced conditions. The speed at which the lockdown decision was made meant that not everybody would have access to a computer or laptop and certainly not to a printer, while during the lockdown people might be constrained by having to wait for ICT support or variability in Wi-Fi bandwidth. Such hindrances on working or achieving tasks will not be valued by employees and will adversely affect their well- being.

Third, while waiting for decisions by others may be part of normal working, informational blockages may impact on well-being in a distinctive way when all people are working at home or have not been able to prepare for this. For example, employees may not be able to resolve issues immediately as they can by knocking on a colleague’s door. Such effects will impede the achievement of employees and have a similar effect on well-being to that of limited ICT provision.

We thus test:

Care responsibilities that constrain homeworking are negatively related to well-being.

ICT constraints on homeworking are negatively related to well-being.

Awaiting information is negatively related to well-being.

2.5. COVID-19

The most direct effect of the virus on well-being and health is having it. However, we focus on how the development of the pandemic generated fear and uncertainty in people about their and their relatives catching it. We expect that public announcements of the official government figures of death would have the most impact and that the direction of change in these from the previous period would be what most registers with people. Because the risk of getting the virus and dying was known quite early in the pandemic to be greater for older people, we also assume that the effect of the changes in death rates on well-being is moderated by age. We thus hypothesise:

Increases in COVID-19 deaths are negatively related to well-being.

Age moderates the negative relationship between increases in COVID-19 deaths and well-being such that the relationship is stronger for older employees than younger employees.

The initial lockdown generated an instant fall in economic activity, with the prospect of recession on an unprecedented scale likely to be uppermost in people’s minds. The UK government’s job retention measures, which included a furlough scheme and aid for self-employed workers, were designed to minimise or avert this. This focus reflected a recognition that the nature of the pending recession in the UK would centre on job destruction. Declining demand would also accelerate trends already underway, involving for example the downsizing of middle management [ 35 ]. Some sectors were more adversely affected than others. Within the university sector, fears of declining student numbers, as international students might be unable to travel abroad and home students would be put off by remote learning, quickly developed. We therefore expect job insecurity to have affected well-being in the lockdown [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. It is in our terms a COVID-19-related factor as the actions taken to mitigate it depressed demand in the economy and employees feared that employers would begin to lay-off employees or use other recessionary actions, which have been shown to increase job insecurity and decrease well-being [ 39 ]. We thus hypothesize that:

Job insecurity is negatively related to well-being.

The hypotheses may be applied to within- and between-person relationships. The theoretical development in the well-being area is not yet sufficiently granular to frame different hypotheses for the two. In fact, Sonnentag [ 7 ] p. 281 suggested, the evidence from within- and between-studies of well-being is “very similar”. Multi-level analysis can be used to assess whether the same factors explain fluctuations in well-being during the pandemic and changes in its average level during the pandemic level. Consequently, while assuming homology between the two when formulating our hypotheses, we leave open the possibility of differences. We also leave open the question of whether there were any changes in the effects as the pandemic progressed, as we have no a priori expectations. Caring as a constraint on homeworking, for example, might be reduced when schools were open but this may or may not change its effects on well-being. Alternatively, it may remain constant but have a lesser effect over time as people adjust to the situation.

3. The Study

3.1. research design.

The empirical study is based on two four-week diary studies conducted in two English universities. We chose a one-week interval for the diary as the pattern of employees’ work and nonwork activities reflect a seven-day cycle. The first survey was administered during the first months of the lockdown in Spring 2020 and the second in early Autumn. 2020. The repetition of the study with the two samples from the same population enables us to assess the enduring or changing nature of the effects as the pandemic developed.

The study design thus captures the potential dynamism of our key variables [ 40 ]. First, our wellbeing measures contain variance that reflects deviations from people’s average levels of wellbeing due to short- and longer-term changes in their environment. For example, job demands and resources fluctuate over time [ 7 ] so the relationships between job characteristics and wellbeing also contain covariation attributable to these fluctuations. In relation to the pandemic, the risk of infection and other problems associated with key actors’ responses to it were, we suspected, likely to change from week to week and from month to month, so we required a methodology that could capture the changes between times of the year and distinguish short-run and longer-run changes. In addition, while both universities were at the time of our design subject to the same national restrictions, there were signs of regional differences in the spread of the virus over time as well as in the application of regulations and procedures. As it transpired, differences in regulations across the UK emerged, though the differences between the situation in our two sites that existed in September did not translate to lower levels of well-being.

3.2. Setting, Recruitment and Sample

The weekly diary study was administered to employees at two universities in England, in the Midlands and South, the aim being to cover all occupations (academic and non-academic), departments and working arrangements in the universities. A university setting allows research to concentrate specifically on the effects of the changing location of work and the issues of home working. Nonetheless, there is significant variability in the degree to which people can do all their tasks at home or work in an identical way to their normal work arrangements. Planning for digitalizing teaching material for on-line teaching was just beginning in the period and had not changed the nature of employees’ work to the extent that it would as the pandemic persisted. Variation in people’s history of homeworking also made it an attractive location as many academics regularly worked at home prior to the pandemic while other university employees did not.

The first survey went out when the UK was in a national lockdown in which people were instructed to work at home wherever possible, more specifically on the 1 May in the Midlands’ university and on the 22 May in the Southern one as the spread of the virus from its epicentre in London was earlier in the former location. The second went out in September, when national restrictions had been eased to some extent. The baseline measures of well-being for the first phase were acquired in a survey concentrating on biographic data completed two weeks before the diary study. In the phase 2 study, the well-being measures in week four of the first phase were used as the baseline measures.

Out of 3900 staff members, whose participation was solicited through a general email, 784 responded to the baseline survey, for a response rate of 20%. At the Southern university, the main channel for recruitment was a staff newsletter. In this university, 390 out of 4950 staff members (8%) responded to the baseline survey. The lower response rate in this setting may reflect the recruitment method, as newsletters may not be received by all staff members. Those respondents that completed the diary on only one occasion in a phase were removed for the data for that phase, producing a combined sample across the universities of 831 participants for the first phase (70.8% of the initial sample) and 492 participants for the second (41.9% of the initial sample). The majority of the participants completed it for all four weeks (57.3% for the first period and 57.7% for the second). The characteristics of the sample were very similar across the two phases ( Table 1 ). For example, for the first phase, 65 per cent of the sample were from the Midlands university, while the figure was 62 per cent in phases two. In two cases they were identical; 78 per cent of the sample worked full time and 86 per cent of the sample were graduates in both samples.

Characteristics of the Sample: Percentages with characteristics by phase.

3.3. Measures

The measures were a mixture of established scales and bespoke questions that we designed to capture the uniqueness of the enforced homeworking and pandemic where no established measures were available. The Cronbach alphas for all measures are reported in Table 2 and Table 3 .

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Phase 1.

N observations = 2787, N participants = 831; Lower triangle = Between-person correlations. −0.07 > r > 0.07 are significant at 0.05; Upper triangle = Within-person correlations. −0.04 > r > 0.04 are significant at 0.05; Numbers on the top row are the variables indicators corresponding to the table’s first column.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Phase 2.

N observations = 1649 N participants = 492; Lower triangle = Between-person correlations. −0.09 > r > 0.09 are significant at 0.05; Upper triangle = Within-person correlations. −0.05 > r > 0.05 are significant at 0.05; Numbers on the top row are the variable indicators corresponding to the table’s first column.

3.3.1. Well-Being

We examine three measures of our focal outcome, well-being, to reflect its various dimensions. The first two measures capture hedonic well-being, which following circumplex theory of emotion, has two dimensions: pleasure and activation [ 41 ]. Combining these dimensions, the theory identifies two orthogonal dimensions of hedonic affect: anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm. Each dimension ranges from unpleasant to pleasant but anxiety is characterized by high activation and depression by low activation. The third measure captured general mental well-being, covering eudemonic elements of well-being, personal growth and the purposefulness of life, in addition to the hedonic aspects.

Anxiety–contentment. We used items from Warr’s scales [ 42 ] based on asking respondents to rate the extent to which they felt (four) states in the last seven days: the states being “anxious”, “worried”, “at ease”, “relaxed”. Responses were given on a five-point scale, “never”, “occasionally”, “some of the time”, “most of the time”, and “all of the time”, and item responses were recoded such that high scores indicated better well-being.

Depression–enthusiasm was measured in the same way as anxiety–contentment, with the states being “depressed”, “gloomy”, “happy” and “cheerful”.

Mental well-being was measured using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) [ 43 ], which we adapted to fit the weekly survey, in which respondents were asked to rate during the last 7 days the extent to which they felt seven states. The states were (a) “optimistic about the future”, (b) “feeling useful”, (c) “feeling relaxed”, (d) “dealing with problems well”, (e) “thinking clearly”, (f) “close to other people”, (g) “able to make up my own mind about things”. A five-point response scale was used: “none of the time”, “rarely”, “some of the time”, “often”, and “all the time”. Thus, high scores on this measure indicated better well-being.

3.3.2. Job Characteristics Factors

Job autonomy was measured by a three-item scale adapted from Morgeson and Humphrey [ 44 ], and based on asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their work in the past seven days: “I could plan how to do my work”, “I could make a lot of decisions on my own”, “I could decide on my own how to go about doing my work”. Responses were given on a five-point scale, with the options of “strongly disagree”, “somewhat disagree”, “neither agree nor disagree” “somewhat agree”, and “strongly agree”.

Social support was measured by a four-item scale from Schreurs, van Emmerik, Günter and Germeys [ 45 ] based on asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their experience in the past 7 days: “My colleagues showed that they liked me”, “My colleagues showed that they appreciated the way I do my work”, “My colleagues gave me advice on how to handle things”, “My colleagues helped me with some tasks”. Responses were given on the same five-point scale as for job autonomy, that is from “strongly disagree”, to “strongly agree”.

Job demands was measured by a three-item measure based on asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the following statements about their work in the seven days: “My work required that I work very hard”, “I never seem to have enough time to get my work done”, “I was asked/needed to do an excessive amount of work”. The first two of the items we selected were from Britain’s Workplace Employee Relations Survey employee questionnaire, the third was created for this survey ( https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/workplace-employment-relations-study-wers , accessed on 1 July 2021). The five-point agreement scale, from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, was used.

Total hours worked was measured by the total hours worked throughout the week, including weekends, based on asking respondents the hours worked each day.

3.3.3. Work–Nonwork Interface Factors

Work–to-nonwork conflict was measured by a question used by Wood and Michaelides [ 46 ] which they adapted from Voydanoff [ 47 ]: “How often in the last 7 days did you feel work interfered with nonwork activities?” The response codes were: “never”, “seldom”, “sometimes”, “often” and “very often”.

Nonwork–to-work conflict was measured in a similar way to work–nonwork conflict by a question: “How often in the last 7 days did you feel nonwork activities interfered with work?” The same response options as for work-to-nonwork conflict were applied.

Detachment from work was measured by items from Sonnentag and Fritz [ 48 ] asking “Over the last 7 days, during time after work”: “Did you forget about work?”, “Did you not think about work at all?”, “Did you get a break from the demands of work?”, the response scale being: “none of the time”, “rarely”, “some of the time”, “often” and “all of the time”.

3.3.4. Homeworking Factors

Divergence from normal work was measured by a bespoke scale based on asking respondents to what extent they agreed with three statements about the last 7 days: “This week has been similar to my work pattern when the University is open” (R), “I treated my home working as office time and set aside the same amount of time” (R), “I had to be more flexible than normal about the hours I worked”. Responses were given on a five-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strong agree”.

Loneliness was measured by asking “Please rate the extent to which you felt lonely in the last 7 days”, with responses given on a five-point scale: “never”, “occasionally”, “some of the time”, “most of the time” and “all of the time”.

3.3.5. Enforced Homeworking Factors

Care responsibilities as constraints on homeworking were based on asking respondents whether their “ability to work” at home was constrained because of one or more of a list of possible constraints, of which one was their care responsibilities. The question required a yes/no answer.

ICT constraints on homeworking was measured in a similar way to care responsibilities through including “I do not have a computer or other necessary equipment at home” in the list of possible constraints. In addition, answers to the “other” response option at the end of the list that involved the quality of ICT were recoded to be included in this measure.

Information constraints on homeworking was measured using a newly constructed three-item measure based on the level of agreement to these statements: “My ability to perform my key tasks was constrained by…” “not having sufficient information to do key aspects of my job”, “awaiting decisions from my line manager of department head”, and “awaiting decisions from the senior management”. Responses were given on the five-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

3.3.6. COVID-19 Factors

Change in COVID-19 deaths is measured as the increase or decrease in the number of deaths on the day of completion of the questionnaire relative to the previous day. Actual number of deaths was based on data recorded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which were obtained from Gassen [ 49 ]). The variable was rescaled to 0 mean and 1 SD to ease interpretation of the interaction effect.

Age , measured by chronological age, was also rescaled to 0 mean and 1 SD to ease interpretation of the interaction effect.

Job insecurity is based on asking respondents to rate the extent to which they felt or experienced job insecurity in the last 7 days, on a five-point scale, “Never”, “Occasionally”, “Some of the time”, “Most of the time”, “All of the time”.

3.3.7. Control Variables

Control variables were selected on the basis of their observed effect in prior studies on well-being, and included age, male/female, education (graduate versus nongraduate), university affiliation (Midlands versus Southern), childcare responsibilities, supervisory duties, commute time to university, tenure, preference for segmentation, and history of homeworking. Commute time and history of homeworking were included as a reduction in the former is widely seen as an advantage of homeworking and we would expect people with prior experience of homeworking to find the adaptation to the working at home less difficult. Measures of these controls are available from the authors.

3.4. Analysis Procedure

Because weekly responses were embedded within individuals, the data are nested and we used multilevel structural equation modelling to evaluate simultaneously the predictors of the three well-being measures. All analyses were performed with R [ 50 ] and the lavaan package [ 51 ].

Before testing the hypotheses, we evaluated the ICC coefficients for the three measures of well-being, which confirmed that a random intercept model was needed as the proportion of variance explained by the person-level grouping was: 72.4% (phase 1) and 74.1% (phase 2) for anxiety–contentment, 73.4% (phase 1) and 77.8% (phase 2) for depression–enthusiasm, and 69.8% (phase 1) and 73.8% (phase 2) for mental well-being. Hypothesis 6a implies a cross-level interaction involving age that might require a random slope for the effect of changes in COVID-19 deaths. Preliminary analysis using multilevel regressions, however, revealed that a random slope did not significantly improve the model and thus a fixed-effect model was used.

Testing a structural equation model with only control variables revealed that some were not significantly related to any well-being measure for either phase and were excluded from our main analysis. The control variables we retained at the between-person level of the model were age, gender, education and university affiliation.

Finally, to understand whether our predictors and outcomes changed between the two data collection phases we tested a series of multilevel models. Each of these was specified as a random intercept model to account for the repeated measurement of the variable and used a categorical fixed effect predictor to test the change from phase 1 to phase 2.

We present the analysis for each phase separately. Means and standard deviations for all the variables in the analyses are presented in Table 2 for phase 1, and Table 3 for phase 2. The tables show between-level and within-level correlation coefficients based on the unconditional structural equation model.

4.1. Weekly, Within-Person Analysis

Total variance explained by our predictors in phase 1 at the weekly (within-person) level was: 17.8% for anxiety-contentment, 12.7% for depression-enthusiasm and 12% for mental well-being, and for phase 2 there was a decrease to 13.7% for anxiety–contentment and 12.1% for depression–enthusiasm and an increase to 14.2% for mental well-being. The results are presented in Table 4 and Table 5 .

Phase1 within-person effects on well-being.

N = 2787, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; B = Unstandardised regression coefficients; SE = Standard error; R 2 represents the proportion of variance of a dependent variable that can be explained by the combination of independent variables in a model.

Phase 2 within-person effects on well-being.

N = 1649, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; B = Unstandardised regression coefficients; SE = Standard error; R 2 represents the proportion of variance of a dependent variable that can be explained by the combination of independent variables in a model.

The results for five variables are consistent across the two phases ( Table 4 and Table 5 ). Predictors that were significant across the three well-being measures at both time phases were two positively related factors, job autonomy and detachment from work, and one negatively related factor, loneliness, while two factors were not significant in either period for any outcome, total hours worked and ICT constraints.

Some of the other predictors were relatively consistent and significant across phases and outcomes. Social support was positively related to well-being in both periods, but in phase 1 was unrelated to anxiety–contentment. Similarly, job insecurity was negatively related to well-being in both phases, but was unrelated to mental well-being in phase 1 and to anxiety–contentment in phase 2. Both work–nonwork conflict measures were negatively related to all well-being measures in phase 1 but in phase 2 work-to-nonwork conflict was unrelated to any measure and nonwork-to-work conflict was related to only two measures, anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm. Information constraints only had one significant effect, a negative relationship with depression-enthusiasm in phase 1.

Some predictors became less important over time, with significant associations in phase 1 but not in phase 2. Care responsibilities as constraints was significant for anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm in phase 1 only. Change in COVID-19 deaths also reduced in importance between the study periods. It was negatively related to both anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm in phase 1 but was unrelated to any well-being measure in phase 2. The interaction between COVID-19 deaths and age was significant for anxiety–contentment and mental well-being in phase 1, but not depression–enthusiasm then, or any well-being measure in phase 2. Simple slope analysis revealed that changes in COVID-19 deaths had an effect on anxiety–contentment for both high-aged and middle-aged employees and for mental health the effect was confined to the older group; the effects were non-significant for the younger age group ( Figure 1 ).

Interaction effects between Change in COVID-19 deaths and Age. ( A ) Anxiety-Contentment. ( B ) Mental Well-being.

Finally, the direction of the effect of two variables differed between the two phases of the study. Both job demands and divergence from normal working had positive relationships with mental well-being in phase 1 but were negatively related to anxiety–contentment in phase 2.

4.2. Between-Person Analysis

Table 6 and Table 7 report the results for the between-person effects in phase 1 and 2, respectively. For phase 1, we controlled for baseline well-being so that the results reflect the effects on the change in well-being from its pre-pandemic level. Similarly for phase 2 we controlled for person-level well-being at phase 1 so that the results reflect the change in well-being from phase 1 to phase 2. Fewer variables were significantly related to well-being than in the within-person investigation, but the effects are stronger. For phase 1, these accounted for 73.4% of the variance for anxiety–contentment, 70% for depression–enthusiasm and 70.4% for mental well-being. For phase 2, the variance explained decreased to 58.5% for anxiety–contentment, 62.6% for depression–enthusiasm and 61.9% for mental well-being.

Phase 1 between-person effects on well-being.

N = 831, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; B = Unstandardised regression coefficients; SE = Standard error; R 2 represents the proportion of variance of a dependent variable that can be explained by the combination of independent variables in a model.

Phase 2 between-person effects on well-being.

N = 492, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; B = Unstandardised regression coefficients; SE = Standard error; R 2 represents the proportion of variance of a dependent variable that can be explained by the combination of independent variables in a model.

Of the predictors tested at the between-person level, loneliness was associated, (negatively) with all well-being measures for both phases. Job autonomy (positive relationship), detachment from work (positive relationship), and job insecurity (negative relationship) were related to all outcomes in phase 1; but in phase 2 job autonomy was unrelated to anxiety–contentment, detachment from work was unrelated to depression–enthusiasm, and job insecurity was associated with only anxiety–contentment. Job demands and work–to-nonwork conflict were both negatively related to anxiety–contentment only in phase 1, and social support was positively related only to mental well-being in both phases. ICT constraints was related to mental well-being in phase 2 but, contrary to expectations, the relationship was positive.

Of the control variables, age was positively related to all well-being measures in phase 1, and males had higher levels of anxiety–contentment and mental well-being than women in phase 1. With the exception of well-being at the previous phase, none of the control variables were significant for phase 2.

Table 8 summarises the implications of these results for the hypotheses. The factors that emerged as the most consistent predictors of well-being were the job characteristics of autonomy and social support (both positive predictors; H1a and 1b), the work–nonwork interface factor of detachment from work (also a positive predictor; H2c), the homeworking factor of loneliness (a negative predictor; H3b), and the COVID-19 factor of job insecurity (another negative predictor; H5c). Factors pertaining to the enforced nature of homeworking (H4a–c) and the COVID-19 factors pertaining to increases in deaths and the interaction effect of this with age had some bearing on well-being in phase 1, when it did not at phase 2, suggesting a decline in their salience over the pandemic period. In general, support for the hypotheses in the person-level analyses was weaker.

Summary of hypotheses and results.

4.3. Changes from Phase 1 to Phase 2

The average level of all well-being measures declined significantly between phase 1 and 2 ( Table 9 ). The key determinants in our study, however, did not decline consistently. Of the factors that enhance well-being, job autonomy remained stable, support increased and the ability to detach from work decreased. Of those hypothesised to diminish well-being, total hours and job demands rose, as did work-to-nonwork conflict, loneliness, ICT constraints, and awaiting information. Nonwork-to-work conflict, care responsibilities and job insecurity decreased from phase 1 to phase 2.

Comparison of means between phase 1 and phase 2 for all variables.

N observations = 4436, N = 849, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; B = Unstandardised regression coefficients; SE = Standard error.

The implication of our analysis is that loneliness and the ability to detach from work were the crucial factors in the changing levels of well-being, with the improved job insecurity and nonwork–to-work conflict offering some compensation. Other factors that increased included total hours, job demands, work–to-nonwork conflict, ICT constraints on homeworking, and information constraints on homeworking. Nonwork-to-work interference and care as a constraint reduced, so their effect, which was confined, to fluctuations in well-being in phase 1, was no longer significant in phase 2. Both findings presumably reflect the fact that children were able to return to school.

5. Discussion

5.1. theoretical implications.

The aim of the study was to assess whether the general work-related factors, job demands, job autonomy, social support, and work–nonwork conflict, explain the well-being of professional homeworkers during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic or whether factors that are specific to the pandemic or homeworking swamp these. This study shows both types are important. Taken together the results for weekly fluctuations confirm the importance of four of the five types of factors that we identified at the outset of the paper as potentially affecting the well-being of employees working at home during the pandemic:–job-level, work–home interface, homeworking and COVID-19-specific factors. One type of the Karasek triad of job characteristics–demands as measured by total hours worked and job demands–was not significantly related to well-being in either phase, with the exception that job demands was negatively related to anxiety–contentment in phase two. It was however positively related to mental well-being in phase one. Factors that reflect the enforced nature of homeworking in the pandemic are not so reliably related to all well-being measures. Nonetheless, aspects of the enforced homeworking, such as home schooling, may have contributed to the association of caring constraints with well-being in phase one, as well as to the effect of forms of work–nonwork conflict.

Two of the four factors that explain both the fluctuations and changes in the level of well-being over the phases are consistent with past homeworking studies, job autonomy and loneliness. The former confirms the significance of this core job characteristic to well-being regardless of its location. Nonetheless, its lack of significance in explaining the change in the level of well-being in phase two relative to phase one raises questions about its generality over time or, at least when homeworking is mandatory. The latter, loneliness, is highly salient to homeworking but could apply to workers working alone either outdoors or indoors, for example, security guards or single office occupants particularly at night. The detachment from work and job insecurity results are consistent with research outside of the homeworking context.

Taking the two levels of analysis together, the study shows that the pandemic has contributed to short-term fluctuations in the well-being of employees working at home, but the factors that affect all jobs, the extent of job autonomy, ability to detach from work and job insecurity remain important and their effects are likely to endure after the pandemic, regardless of the degree of homeworking. The strength of loneliness’s effect on well-being, however, may reflect the isolation of homeworking.

That the factors related to the work–nonwork interface only explain fluctuations in well-being supports the idea that people develop routines around work that enable them to have settled levels of interference from work and it is violations of these that are most significant for well-being [ 46 ]. The cumulative effect of these may in the medium-term affect the level of well-being but this was not evident by the second phase of our study. The fact that work–nonwork conflict is significantly related to well-being at both phases suggests that adjustments were required mostly in the nonwork sphere to accommodate work demands; this may well be specific to the homeworking context, but this cannot be ascertained here.

The same kind of logic about established routines can be applied to the finding that social support is associated with fluctuations in well-being but not the level. People have a routine level of support that they take for granted, which contributes to create a stable way of life, so it is variations from the norm that affects well-being. Moments of excessive support and recognition are pleasurable and reassuring while equally moments of unsupportive colleagues create anxieties, depression and a questioning of one’s life purpose.

The most salient unsupported results are the lack of association between total hours in both phases and job demands’ variability over time and between well-being dimensions. The extent to which this divergence from JD–R theory is related to the homeworking context cannot be assessed here. However, it seems unlikely. This lack of an effect of total hours on well-being, as well as the fact that divergence from normal working patterns is unrelated to well-being, may reflect a mixture of the normality of fluctuating hours of work for people and an acceptance of the need to be flexible when faced with changing needs. However, as the pandemic developed job demands increased but the effect was limited to increasing anxiety for individuals compared with their level in phase one, and there was no between-person effect. Further increases in demands, may yet trigger a tipping point which produces stronger associations with well-being.

The lack of a COVID-19 effect in phase two reflects the summer decline in cases and, as the crisis was far from over, perhaps an element of adaptation. That the interaction with age was not significant for depression–enthusiasm in phase one when it was related to anxiety–contentment and mental well-being suggests that the dampening effect of COVID-19 death rates on enthusiasm or its creation of depressive moods, applied to all employees; any increased anxiety or questioning of one’s life purpose and constraints on cognitive performance induced by COVID-19 deaths was less likely amongst the young.

Apart from the non-significant hypothesized relationships, the two other deviant results were job demands and ICT constraint being positively related to mental well-being in phase one and phase two, respectively. The former may reflect the way that the higher job demands involved work that was directly connected with the pandemic or arrangements for working at home which heightened employees’ sense of purpose. The latter may reflect a direction of causality problem: that employees with a greater sense of purpose and cognitive health may be the ones most in need of ICT support or equipment such as printers.

5.2. Strengths and Weaknesses

A before-and-after study was not possible, due to the limited warning of the lockdowns, but the strengths of the study are that we commenced it immediately following the UK government’s response to the pandemic, collected data over two phases, and included a comprehensive coverage of factors that might affect well-being. The enforced nature of homeworking in the pandemic meant our study avoids both the problem of variability over the week in days worked at home and the self-selection problem, and means the results are not contaminated by the possibility that people alternate homeworking with on-site working or have selected to work at home. A further strength is that the relative stability of the higher education sector through these phases of the pandemic means that our findings are unlikely to be confounded by declines in income or large reductions in work demands, as happened in many other sectors of the economy.

The weaknesses include a lack of consideration of homeworking’s effect on career progression [ 32 , 52 ] and in turn well-being, but we gauged that it was too early for participants to reflect on this. We also omitted questions about senior management’s supportiveness, as this overlaps with the information constraints and social support of colleagues (which will include elements of senior management) variables.

The inclusive nature of our sample means that the results of our study may be generalizable to other professional employees and a wide range of industries where whole workforces were mandated to work at home. The effect of the fear of COVID-19 on anxiety and its impact on somatic complaints at the outbreak of social distancing measures has been demonstrated by Trougakos, Chawla, and McCarthy’s [ 53 ] in research in Canada. Job autonomy as a positive influence on well-being has been confirmed in a wide range of occupations and locations [ 54 ] and the downsides of homeworking identified are consistent with pre-pandemic studies–for example de Vries, Trummers. and Bekkers [ 55 ] confirm its effect on isolation, Eddlestone and Mulki [ 56 ] show it affects the ability to detach from work, and Grant, Wallace and Spurgeon [ 57 ] demonstrate both effects. Such conditions are not specific to the pandemic, but may have taken on different qualities during it. Whether they will remain the dominant factors in shaping the well-being of homeworkers as the pandemic subsides and the new normal takes shape is an open-question. Future research, in other contexts, within and post the pandemic, can assess if our findings are generalizable over time or to other professional service settings, or even beyond these. However, the fact that homeworking factors relating to its sudden and enforced nature, as well as the history of staff working at home, are less significant suggests that we can use the study in evidence-based decision making about the future of homeworking and arrangements to maximise its benefits.

5.3. Policy Implications

The future of homeworking will depend onthe choices made by employers and employees. Our study has a number of implications for how these choices should be approached. Firstly, that effects of homeworking on well-being should be a major criterion for judging different arrangements. Reported levels of satisfaction with homeworking in the pandemic should not dominate. Second, the double-edged nature of homeworking should be recognized: it may for example increase autonomy but at the expense of isolation and blurring of boundaries between work and home. The danger of focusing on satisfaction levels, especially if they are high, is that the downsides of homeworking, will get neglected, and hence ways to mitigate them will be ill-considered. The third implication is indeed that practical measures to avoid loneliness and help people detach from work should be given high priority. It should be part of a more general high-involvement approach to management [ 58 , 59 ]. Where better to start than involving people in the design of homeworking practices? Ensuring that involvement practices such as working parties and idea-capturing schemes involve virtual as well as face-to-face encounters is vital if we continue with homeworking, even or perhaps especially in a hybrid system. Fourth, in common with most well-being studies, the results highlight the importance of employees’ job autonomy. This should be a conscious and thorough process; it should not be taken for granted that homeworkers automatically have more discretion or feel more in control of their work and time, or alternatively that they need special forms of surveillance, for example, through that provided by digital technology. In following these prescriptions, special attention should be paid to those employees who already may feel somewhat isolated or that they are treated differently, which may well include part-time workers and people in highly specific jobs with low task interdependency.

Our results also have implications for public health and employment policies. The current emphasis of public bodies towards work-related mental health and associated impacts on absence is on the workplace and specifically on job characteristics and relationships. The World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, the European Union, the International Organization for Standardization, and some countries’ health and safety bodies (e.g., Britain and Italy) have issued guidance on assessing risks of stress based on stressors associated with a lack of resources or existence of demands. The implication of our study is that fresh consideration should be given to the stressors to ensure they match a world in which homeworking may become more significant, and, regardless of this, that they include the work–nonwork interface, isolation, and detachment from work. Questions concerned with the autonomy, demands and support in the organization may need extending to include some specifically on homeworking and to ensure the increasing significance its places on line managers in the achievement of employees’ well-being [ 60 ]. Thus, enhancing the capability of line managers may be particularly effective in supporting those who developed mental health conditions during the pandemic.

6. Conclusions

People’s well-being while homeworking during the pandemic was affected by both job characteristics and factors beyond these, including the progression of the COVID-19 epidemic. This study has shown Karesek’s and JD–R theory’s focus on job characteristics is applicable to home working in a pandemic, as job autonomy and support from colleagues are related to well-being fluctuations, and job demands had a direct relationship with the weekly fluctuations in anxiety–contentment in phase two. Nonetheless, the application of this perspective to this context needs supplementing with factors related to homeworking and the pandemic such as loneliness, an inability to detach from work and fear of the pandemic’s health effects. Crucially, loneliness and psychological detachment dominated the observed decline in well-being as the pandemic progressed. As of the time of the study, any effect of the growth in job demands on well-being was swamped by these.

There are general lessons for well-being research. First, as differences between within- and between- person results are apparent, theories of well-being in all work contexts should not assume that these will be identical. Second, they must include variables more specific to the location and context than has traditionally been the case when following JD–R theory. In highlighting its downsides, the results contrast with the emphasis in much public discussion on the virtues of homeworking based on reported high levels of employees’ satisfaction with homeworking and of positive performance effects. In employers’ and employees’ decision-making about the nature and role of homeworking in the future, its potential to create stress needs to be placed alongside it potential to improve well-being. More generally well-being initiatives should be focused on stressors, the causes of stress–and facilitators of well-being–and less on managing their effects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J.W., G.M., I.I., E.T.H., K.D., K.N.; methodology, S.J.W., G.M., I.I., E.T.H., K.D., K.N.; formal analysis, S.J.W., G.M.; resources, S.J.W.; data curation, G.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J.W. and G.M.; writing—review and editing S.J.W., G.M., I.I., E.T.H., K.D., K.N.; project administration, S.J.W.; funding acquisition, S.J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The project was part supported by a grant from the University of Leicester’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (grant ref: ES/T501967/1).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universities of Leicester (number 1105) and Exeter (number: eUEBS003208 v2.0); and at all times it has been conducted according to the UKRI Research Concordant, the General Data Protection Regulation (2018) and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Homeworking, Well-Being and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Diary Study

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Leicester Business School, Leicester LE2 1RQ, UK.
• 2 Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
• 3 University of Exeter Business School, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK.
• 4 School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
• 5 Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester M15 6PB, UK.
• PMID: 34300025
• PMCID: PMC8307349
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18147575

As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments encouraged or mandated homeworking wherever possible. This study examines the impact of this public health initiative on homeworkers' well-being. It explores if the general factors such as job autonomy, demands, social support and work-nonwork conflict, which under normal circumstances are crucial for employees' well-being, are outweighed by factors specific to homeworking and the pandemic as predictors of well-being. Using data from four-week diary studies conducted at two time periods in 2020 involving university employees in the UK, we assessed five factors that may be associated with their well-being: job characteristics, the work-home interface, home location, the enforced nature of the homeworking, and the pandemic context. Multi-level analysis confirms the relationship between four of the five factors and variability in within-person well-being, the exception being variables connected to the enforced homeworking. The results are very similar in both waves. A smaller set of variables explained between-person variability: psychological detachment, loneliness and job insecurity in both periods. Well-being was lower in the second than the first wave, as loneliness increased and the ability to detach from work declined. The findings highlight downsides of homeworking, will be relevant for employees' and employers' decisions about working arrangements post-pandemic, and contribute to the debate about the limits of employee well-being models centred on job characteristics.

Keywords: covid-19 pandemic: job autonomy; detachment from work; homeworking; loneliness; social support; work–nonwork conflict.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Social Support

Grants and funding

• xxxxx/Economic and Social Research Council

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Misclassification
• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
• Pump at Work

Maternal Health

• Retaliation
• Government Contracts
• Immigration
• Child Labor
• Agricultural Employment
• Subminimum Wage
• Employment of Workers With Disabilities
• Lie Detector Tests
• Davis Bacon Prevailing Wage Survey
• WORKER RIGHTS
• Resources For Employers
• Regulatory Library

Interpretive Guidance

• Industry-Specific Resources
• Compliance Assistance
• elaws Advisors

Fact Sheets

• New and Small Businesses Resources
• Presentations
• External User Portal (EUP)
• Compliance Assistance Toolkits
• New and Small Business Resources
• Publications By Language
• FLSA Compliance Videos
• Know Your Rights Video Series
• Employer.gov
• DOL Enforcement Database
• Workers Owed Wages
• Order Publications

Laws and Regulations

• Field Handbook
• Administrator Interpretations, Opinion and Ruling Letters
• Field Bulletins
• State Minimum Wage Laws
• State Labor Law Topics
• State Labor Offices
• Resources for State and Local Governments
• NEWS RELEASES

Family and Medical Leave Act

Downloading forms notification.

In order to access a form you MUST select the form name and then select the Save link as... to save it to your documents folder. Then edit from there.

The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:

• the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
• the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
• to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
• a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
• any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or
• Twenty-six work weeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).

General Guidance

Guidance materials about the FMLA, including guides for both employers and employees, an employee guide to military leave, Qs & As, mini cards, and more.

Learn more by reading fact sheets that cover a variety of FMLA topics.

Access FMLA Forms.

Other Resources

Access interactive online tools, posters, and presentations about the FMLA.

Review Administrator Interpretations, Opinion and Ruling Letters as well as chapters of the WHD Field Operations Handbook.

Review the FMLA laws and regulations.

Quick Links

FMLA Posters

FMLA Frequently Asked Questions

Break Time for Nursing Mothers

Mental Health and the FMLA

30 Years of FMLA

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility help

Information

We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

NHSScotland 'Once for Scotland' workforce policies - homeworking policy: consultation

The 'Once for Scotland' Workforce Policies Programme is designed to review and transform existing workforce policies (previously known as Partnership Information Network (PIN) Policies). This consultation focuses on the homeworking policy.

The 'Once for Scotland' Workforce Policies Programme is designed to review and transform existing workforce policies (previously known as Partnership Information Network ( PIN ) Policies) in line with our vision:

'Once for Scotland Workforce policies will promote NHSScotland as a modern, exemplar employer; showcasing our core values, and promoting consistent employment policy and practice that supports the implementation of the Staff Governance Standard and effective recruitment and retention.'

The Scottish Workforce and Staff Governance ( SWAG ) Committee agreed that the following principles would govern the development work and future model:

1. The overriding purpose of future policy review exercises will be to create single, standardised policies that will be used consistently and seamlessly across NHSScotland.

2. Policies will be presented in a refreshed and reinvigorated format on a digital platform in a more user friendly and meaningful way, with staff and managers at the centre, whilst still being accessible to all groups of staff in alternative formats.

3. Policies will be developed and reviewed more quickly and efficiently, with accountability for delivery shared between employers, staffside and professional organisations and the Scottish Government.

4. There will be collective responsibility for each PIN Policy in terms of providing governance and leadership around future policy development or review.

5. Existing national PIN policies set good practice standards that have been negotiated and agreed in partnership and the starting presumption should be that these standards will apply at the core of future Once for Scotland policies.

6. Where a national PIN policy has been recently reviewed and is legally compliant, the expectation is that there should be minimal changes in relation to policy standards and therefore the focus is adopting that version to the Once for Scotland policy style.

7. Policies should be developed with robust engagement and take account of good practice locally and within other employers.

8. A new model for PIN policy review will be developed that improves the timeframe and efficiency of PIN policy review.

9. Once policies are agreed, they will be implemented consistently and fully across NHSScotland.

10. In future policies will be more focused on key standards and information and implemented across NHSScotland. The implementation will be supported by processes and procedures that will be nationally or locally agreed as appropriate.

Homeworking Policy

NHSScotland recognises that the working environment has altered in last 18 months as a result of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) pandemic.

The refresh of the Homeworking Policy within the extant Supporting the Work-Life Balance PIN has been prioritised ahead of the other policies in this suite. It will sit alongside the other elements of the Supporting the Work-Life Balance PIN to be refreshed when the 'Once for Scotland' Workforce Policies Programme formally restarts in August 2021.

It is recognised that agile working, as an approach, is becoming more common place. The draft policy for consultation is intended to support employees and managers in considering and agreeing options for flexible work locations. This is not a COVID-19 specific policy. The policy has been refreshed and modernised to reflect the changed working environment. Changes proposed by the employer are covered by the Staff Governance Standard which require full engagement and involvement with affected staff. The NHS Board's Organisational Change Policy will apply where the employer seeks a change in work locations. This will ensure the protection of terms and conditions and no detriment to the employee.

Engagement Model

The emphasis is on moving to more dynamic and interactive engagement within a quicker process and with more direct feedback. The 4 week consultation period will run from 28 June to 26 July 2021 inclusive with necessary flexibility to ensure maximum feedback. The consultation follows the regional engagement events pre-policy (January 2020) and mid-policy development (March 2020). The approach, agreed by the Scottish Workforce and Staff Governance ( SWAG ) Committee, minimises the need for the traditional 2-3 month formal consultation process. The consultation reflects this new model of engagement, and recognises that the extant PIN policies have already been agreed in partnership.

What is included within the consultation?

The consultation focuses on the Homeworking Policy. This includes the following sections:

• Scope (Who it applies to and What can be raised under the policy)
• Definitions
• Roles and responsibilities (specific to the policy and in addition to standard roles and responsibilities)

The policy references supporting documents, each with a descriptor on what this entails, for your consideration.

Please note: supporting documents are not part of the consultation. These will be drafted following the consultation when responses have been analysed and the policy is developed in a final draft.

Standard sections that apply to all policies, for example, Principles and Values, Employee Support, Roles and Responsibilities are available on the NHSScotland Workforce Policies website.

The questions set out in the consultation seek to understand if the refreshed policy reflects our vision for NHSScotland workforce policies to be user-friendly and supportive, and updated to reflect changed working practices. The consultation also includes an equalities section to gather views on the potential impacts of this policy on protected characteristics equalities groups.

Email: [email protected]

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Clinical Testing and Screening
• Tuberculosis Infection Control
• Baseline Individual TB Risk Assessment
• TB Risk Assessment for Health Care Facilities
• Tuberculosis (TB)
• Information for Tuberculosis Programs

Clinical Testing Guidance for Tuberculosis: Health Care Personnel

• Tuberculosis (TB) screening programs for health care personnel are part of TB infection control plans.
• CDC recommends all U.S. health care personnel should be screened for TB upon hire.
• Annual TB testing is not recommended unless there is a known exposure or ongoing transmission.
• State and local TB regulations may differ.

TB screening programs in health care settings

TB screening programs should include anyone working or volunteering in health care settings, including:

• Inpatient settings
• Outpatient settings
• Laboratories
• Emergency medical services
• Medical settings in correctional facilities
• Home-based health care and outreach settings
• Long-term care facilities
• Clinics in homeless shelters

Determining an approach

Follow your state's tb regulations.‎, screening guidelines, resource‎.

CDC and the National TB Coalition of America released updated recommendations for TB screening, testing, and treatment of health care personnel on May 17, 2019.

These recommendations update the health care personnel screening and testing section of the 2005 CDC Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Health-Care Settings .

All U.S. health care personnel should be screened for TB upon hire (i.e., preplacement).

Tb screening includes:.

• A baseline individual TB risk assessment ,
• TB symptom evaluation
• A TB test (e.g., TB blood test or a TB skin test), and
• Additional evaluation for TB disease as needed.

Annual TB testing of health care personnel is not recommended unless there is a known exposure or ongoing transmission at a health care facility.

U.S. health care personnel without latent TB infection should not undergo routine serial TB screening or testing at any interval after baseline (e.g., annually). Health care personnel should have a timely symptom evaluation and additional testing, if indicated, after known exposure to a person with potentially infectious TB disease, or ongoing transmission at a facility.

Treatment for latent TB infection is highly recommended.

Short course, rifamycin-based regimens are the preferred treatment options for latent TB infection because they have higher completion rates.

If health care personnel diagnosed with latent TB infection do not receive treatment:

• Perform annual screening for symptoms of TB disease.
• Annually reevaluate the risk and benefits of treatment for latent TB infection
• Ensure health care personnel know the symptoms of TB disease that should prompt an immediate evaluation between screening

All health care personnel should receive annual TB education.

TB education should include:

• Information on TB risk factors ,
• Signs and symptoms of TB disease, and
• TB infection control policies and procedures.

When to report cases

Notify the health department immediately if TB disease is presumed or confirmed.

Health Care Personnel Baseline Individual Tuberculosis Risk Assessment

TB Programs

Tuberculosis Centers of Excellence for Training, Education, and Medical Consultation

• Sosa LE, Njie GJ, Lobato MN, et al. Tuberculosis Screening, Testing, and Treatment of U.S. Health Care Personnel: Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2019;68:439–443. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6819a3
• Jensen PA, Lambert LA, Iademarco MF, Ridzon R. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54(No. RR-17). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5417a1.htm

TB Prevention in Health Care Settings

Health care settings in the United States should have a TB infection control plan., including TB screening and testing of health care personnel.

Project Links

Fire management plan and environmental assessment, bandelier national monument » fire management plan and environmental assessment » document list, contact information.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

Missouri wildlife refuge is home to blind fish

The lands and waters of the National Wildlife Refuge System offer a haven for species that are facing extinction. After more than 50 years of supporting the Endangered Species Act, we at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are shining a light on some of the special places that help protect threatened and endangered species.

We help protect a wide variety of plants and animals, including some you may never see. Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri has been protecting sensitive cave habitat since the early 1990s. This 40-acre national wildlife refuge national wildlife refuge A national wildlife refuge is typically a contiguous area of land and water managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  for the conservation and, where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Learn more about national wildlife refuge protects Turnback Creek Cave Spring, the outlet of an underground stream designated as critical habitat for the refuge’s namesake - the threatened Ozark cavefish.

Listed as federally threatened in 1984, Ozark cavefish are 2 ¼ inches long, blind and pinkish-white in color. They live in caves, sinkholes or underground springs that are untouched by light in the Ozark region of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. Since Ozark cavefish live in dark environments, sight is unnecessary, and the fish have no eyes. They sense motion given off by organisms in the water to locate food like plankton, isopods, amphipods, crayfish, salamander larvae and even bat guano. 

Sometimes called ‘spring keepers’ or ‘well keepers’ and recognized as a sign that water was safe for drinking, Ozark cavefish were commonly found swimming in buckets drawn from wells. Today, Ozark cavefish are still a sign of good water quality. 

Contaminants above the ground can have negative impacts below 

Turnback Creek Cave consists of Mississippian-aged limestone bedrock. The interconnecting passages are also home to the federally endangered gray bat. These types of caves often have very good water quality, but only if there’s no groundwater pollution from things like pesticides, chemical spills, agricultural runoff and garbage. These contaminants can flow into the groundwater and travel for miles before finally reaching waters where the cavefish live. These underground pools replenish the groundwater supply where people and terrestrial wildlife get their drinking water. Some threats to the Ozark cavefish include water pollution and declining bat populations. They also are at risk of specimen collection, cave disturbance and destruction, as well as changing water tables. 

Collectively working to protect at-risk wildlife 

Together with our neighbors and partners at Paris Springs Conservation Area, we have been able to protect these important habitats across state and federal lands. This state conservation area conservation area A conservation area or wildlife management area is a type of national wildlife refuge that consists primarily or entirely of conservation easements on private lands. These conservation easements support private landowner efforts to protect important habitat for fish and wildlife. There are 13 conservation areas and nine wildlife management areas in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Learn more about conservation area shares the same mission to protect Turnback Cave and Ozark cavefish populations. Missouri Department of Conservation staff have been invaluable on-site managers, helping to limit disturbance to the protected cave. In addition, they work with nearby landowners to help with conservation efforts. 

The cave is closed to the public to help prevent spread of white-nose syndrome, a cold-loving fungus, which has caused the deaths of millions of bats across the country. White-nose syndrome has been detected in Missouri and we are working with state and federal agency partners to lessen the spread. 

Endangered species recovery is complex work, often requiring substantial time and resources. Species today face ongoing threats like habitat loss as well as climate change climate change Climate change includes both global warming driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. Though there have been previous periods of climatic change, since the mid-20th century humans have had an unprecedented impact on Earth's climate system and caused change on a global scale. Learn more about climate change and wildlife trafficking. We have a continued commitment as a nation to protect imperiled species. 

Each of these species is a part of the web of life, each with a unique cultural and biological community, performing services that are essential to our combined well-being. By conserving them, we help ensure the benefits that accrue from them - healthy air, land and water - on which we depend. 

You can make a difference too! Help protect the Ozark cavefish by avoiding caves, disposing of trash properly and retaining forested buffers near cave entrances. 

Learn more about Ozark Cavefish National Wildlife Refuge

Related Stories

Latest Stories

You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website

You are being directed to

We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Homeworking in the UK: hours, opportunities and rewards

Analysis of working from home in the UK between 2011 and 2020, including the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Looking at indicators of productivity and work success such as pay, hours worked, bonuses, promotions and more. Including industry, region and demographic breakdowns. Part of the Economic review: April 2021.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/homeworkingintheukhoursopportunitiesandrewards

Official statistics are produced impartially and free from political influence.

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .