Cornell University

 

Rehabilitation Research and Training Center

 

Disability Statistics User Guide Series

 

A Guide to Disability Statistics from the

American Community Survey

 

 

 

Robert R. Weathers II

Cornell University

July 13, 2005

 

 

 


For additional information about this paper contact:
Andrew Houtenville, Director
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics
Employment and Disability Institute
303 ILR Extension Building
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

(607) 255-5702 (Phone)
(607) 255-2763 (Fax)

 

This paper is being distributed by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics at Cornell University.

 

This center is funded to Cornell University by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (No. H133B031111). The contents of this paper do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government (Edgar, 75.620 (b)).

 

The Co-Principal Investigators are:
Susanne M. Bruyère—Director,
Employment and Disability Institute,
School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Extension Division, Cornell University

 


Richard V. Burkhauser—Sarah Gibson Blanding Professor and Chair,
Department of Policy Analysis and Management,
College of Human Ecology,
Cornell University

 


Andrew J. Houtenville—Senior Research Associate,
Employment and Disability Institute,
School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division,
Cornell University

 


David C. Stapleton—Director, Cornell University Institute for Policy Research

 

 

 

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Introduction. 3

Conceptual Model of Disability. 4

Operational Issues. 6

ACS Background, Methodology and Definitions. 6

Purpose of the ACS . 7

Development of the ACS . 7

Universe and Sample Design. 8

Data Collection Methodology. 9

Definitions. 9

Endorsements. 14

Dissemination. 15

Changes to the ACS and Implications. 15

2000 ACS PUMS Weights and Editing Methodology. 15

Changes to the PUMS Sampling Methodology. 16

Changes to the Disability Questions. 16

Future Changes. 18

ACS Description of Disability Population. 18

ACS Employment and Economic Well Being Estimates. 20

ACS State Level Estimates. 22

ACS Disability Trends 2000 to 2003. 25

Comparisons to Other Data Sources. 26

Population and Prevalence Estimates. 27

Employment Rate Estimates. 28

Economic Well-Being Estimates. 29

Summary and Conclusions. 30

References. 32

Tables. 34

Appendix A. Sample Design and Computation of Standard Errors. 62

Sample Design. 62

Sampling and Non-Sampling Error 64

U. S. Census Bureau Methods to Compute Standard Errors. 65

Confidence Intervals. 66

Appendix B. Tables Used for Construction of Poverty Measures. 68

Appendix C. Further Details on Differences in the ACS Over Time 72

C1. Differences Across 2000 ACS PUMS Estimates and 2000 ACS Summary Tables. 72

C2. Changes to the 2003 ACS Questions. 75

Appendix D. Estimated Standard Errors. 78

Appendix E. State Sample Sizes. 90

 


Introduction

The mission of the Cornell StatsRRTC is to bridge the divide between the sources of disability data and the users of disability statistics. One product of this effort is a set of User Guides to national survey data that collect information on the disability population. The purpose of each of the User Guides is to provide disability data users with:

1.      An easily accessible guide to the disability information available in the nationally representative survey;

 

2.      A set of estimates on persons with disabilities from the dataset, including estimates on the size of the population, the prevalence rate, the employment rate and measures of economic well-being;

 

3.      A description of the unique features of the survey;

 

4.      A set of estimates that highlight the unique features of the survey; and

 

5.      A description of how estimates from the dataset compare to other national data that are used to describe the population with disabilities.

 

This User Guide contains information on a new nationally representative survey of households conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau called the American Community Survey (ACS ). The ACS is conducted each year and currently provides national and State level data on demographic, social, economic and housing characteristics. The survey includes six questions that are used to identify the population with disabilities.

There are many features of the ACS that will be useful to disability policymakers, disability service providers, and the disability advocacy community. First, the guide will demonstrate that the ACS contains a unique combination of data on disability, demographic characteristics, economic well being, and employment. Second, the sample size and the design of the ACS will allow users to examine a variety of annual disability statistics at the national, State, Metropolitan Statistical Area and county level. Third, because the data are collected in a consistent manner over time, users can estimate trends in various disability statistics at a level of geographic detail (i.e., the county level) that is not possible in any other national survey. These strengths of the ACS will allow users to track changes to the disability population so that: services can be more effectively targeted to the population; publicly and privately funded disability programs can be more effectively administered; and new programs can be evaluated.

While the ACS can provide information on a wide variety of topics, there are some limitations. First, the ACS is limited to six questions that are used to identify the disability population and it does not allow one to identify the prevalence of specific health conditions (e.g., cancer, paralysis, HIV/AIDS, etc.). Second, the ACS definition does not explicitly include important societal and environmental factors that may contribute to a disability such as discrimination and lack of reasonable accommodations. Finally, the ACS does not capture the population living in "group quarters." Group quarters include individuals living in institutions, college dormitories, and other types of group quarters. This is a very important limitation in that it may leave out an important segment of the population with disabilities. The Census Bureau plans to address this last limitation of the ACS by including a sample of persons living in group quarters beginning in 2006.

Conceptual Model of Disability

One purpose of the User Guides is to describe the information on disability available in the various national surveys. An operational definition of disability is required to fulfill this purpose. Unlike age and gender, that are for the most part readily identifiable individual attributes, disability is usually defined as a complex interaction between a person’s health condition and the social and physical environment. An environment that provides accommodation may allow a person with a health condition to function at the level of a person without a health condition. In this instance, the person may not consider her health condition a disability.

The two major conceptual models of disability are the World Health Organization’s (WHO, 2001) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the disability model developed by Saad Nagi (1965, 1979). Both of these conceptual models recognize disability as a dynamic process that involves the interaction of a person’s health condition, personal characteristics, the physical environment and the social environment. Changes to any one of these factors over time can have an impact on a person’s ability to function and participate in activities. A detailed description of these models, as well as a comparison of these models, is in Jette and Badley (1998).

We use ICF concepts to create operational definitions of disability. The concepts used include impairment, activity limitation, participation restriction, and disability (see WHO, 2001). A prerequisite to each of these concepts is the presence of a health condition. Examples of health conditions are listed in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) and they encompass diseases, injuries, health disorders, and other health related conditions. An impairment is defined as a significant deviation or loss in body function or structure. For example, the loss of a limb or vision loss may be classified as impairments. In some surveys, impairments are defined as long lasting health conditions that limit a person’s ability to see or hear, limit a person’s physical activity, or limit a person’s mental capabilities. An activity limitation is defined as a difficulty an individual may have in executing activities. For example, a person who experiences difficulty dressing, bathing or performing other activities of daily living due to a health condition may be classified as having an activity limitation. In some surveys, activity limitations are identified based upon a standard set of activities of daily living questions (ADL's). A participation restriction is defined as a problem that an individual may experience in involvement in life situations. For example, a working-age person with a severe health condition may have difficulty participating in employment as a result of the physical environment (e.g., lack of reasonable employer accommodations) and/or the social environment (e.g., discrimination). In some surveys, participation restrictions are identified by questions that ask whether the person has a long lasting health condition that limits his or her ability to work, or whether a health conditions affects his or her ability to go outside his or her home to go shopping, to church or to the doctor’s office.

The final ICF concept that we use is a disability. The term disability is used to describe the presence of an impairment, an activity limitation and/or a participation restrictions. This concept is similar to the definition used in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA defines a disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment."

While these concepts may seem to follow a progression—that is, an impairment leading to an activity limitation leading to a participation restriction—it is not necessarily the case. It is possible that a person may have a participation restriction without an activity limitation or impairment. For example, a person diagnosed as HIV positive may not have an evident impairment or activity limitation but may not be able to find employment due to discrimination resulting from his health condition. Similarly, a person with a history of mental illness, but who no longer has a loss in capacity or activity limitation, may also be unable to finding employment due to discrimination resulting from his health condition.

Figure 1 provides a useful summary of the ICF concepts. It illustrates that while there is an overlap across these concepts, it is possible that one of them can occur without a relation to the others. The universe of the ICF is the health of the population as a whole. The shaded area of Figure 1 illustrates the ICF concept of a disability.

Figure 1. Simplified Conceptual Model of Disability Using ICF Concepts

 

Figure 1 is a Venn diagram that shows a box and three overlapping circles that are contained inside the box. The box represents the health of the population. The first circle represents the ICF impairment concept. The second represents the ICF activity limitation concept. The third represents the ICF participation restriction concept. They overlap to show the portions of the population can have any combination of an impairment, an activity limitation and a participation restriction. The portions of each circle that do not overlap with the other circles show that portions of the population can have only one of the three ICF concepts. The portion of the box that is outside of the three circles shows the portion of the population that does not have any of the three ICF concepts.

Operational Issues

Translating the ICF concepts into operational definitions in surveys is not a straightforward task. Decisions to classify the questions into one of the three specific ICF categories were made based upon judgments and are not based upon well defined rules from the ICF. In some cases, the classification is straightforward. In other cases, for example, the survey questions may be interpreted as both an activity limitation and participation restriction. Our approach in these cases was to make clear and consistent judgments so that it may be possible to make comparisons across the datasets. Using this approach provides a framework for comparisons across surveys and for comparisons to ICF concepts.

ACS Background, Methodology and Definitions

The survey methodology can have an important impact on the information that a survey collects on the population with disabilities. Mathiowitz (1998) provides a good review of the general methodological issues as well as those specific to the population with disabilities. The purpose of this section is to describe the development of the ACS , the methods used by the ACS to collect information on the population, and the precise definitions used to describe the population with disabilities.

Purpose of the ACS

The ACS is a new continuous data collection effort by the U.S. Census Bureau that is used to produce annual estimates at the national, State and local level on the characteristics of the United States population. It is designed to replace the decennial Census long form. Beginning in 2005, the ACS will collect information on an annual basis from approximately 3 million addresses in the United States. In 2006, it will also include 2.5 percent of the population living in group quarters, and 36,000 addresses in Puerto Rico (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). In 2003, the ACS collected information on members from over 500,000 U. S. households.

The U.S. Census Bureau has three main objectives for the ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). The first objective is to provide federal, State and local governments with an information base for the administration and evaluation of government programs. The second objective is to use the ACS as a replacement for the decennial Census long form so that the decennial Census can focus solely on counting the population. The third objective is to provide data users with timely information each year on demographic, housing, social and economic statistics that can be compared across States, communities, and population groups.

Development of the ACS

The development of the ACS began in the 1990s and has gone through several testing phases prior to full implementation. The purpose of these testing phases is to examine the performance of the new methodology used by the ACS for collecting more timely information found in the Decennial Census long form. Like the Decennial Census long form, the ACS is designed to produce reliable estimates for small geographic areas (e.g., counties, congressional districts, etc.). The ACS differs from the Decennial Census in that it collects data on a continuous basis and produces reliable estimates by pooling the data over one year, three year, or five year periods; depending upon the size of the area and other considerations.

The early stages of the development process involved demonstrations and testing in four sites in 1996, eight in 1997, and nine in 1998. From 1999 to 2001, the testing expanded to 31 sites which included 36 counties. Most sites were defined as counties, but some sites were defined as multiple contiguous counties. Sites were chosen based upon population size and were not chosen to be nationally representative. A 5% sampling rate was used in most of these sites and a smaller rate was used within a few large sites. The purpose of this test was to compare county level estimates using the ACS methodology pooled from 1999-2001 to the estimates from the Decennial Census long form for the 36 counties. Beginning in 2000, the testing phase included a national comparison sample, referred to as the supplemental sample, with an overall sampling rate of 0.7% annually (i.e., approximately 800,000 addresses per year). The purpose of the national comparison sample was to compare the national population estimates from the ACS to those from the Decennial Census long form. The initial test results show that the ACS performs well when compared to the 2000 Decennial Census long form (Bench, 2004; Diffendal, Petroni and Williams, 2004). Full implementation of the ACS will include three million addresses per year, 2.5 percent of those living in Group Homes per year, and 36,000 addresses in Puerto Rico per year.

Between 2000 and 2004, the ACS data is based upon the sample design of the national comparison sample designed for testing purposes. In 2005, the ACS began full implementation of 3 million addresses. The estimates reported in this user guide are from the 2003 national comparison sample. The 2004 national comparison sample data will be released in August 2005. The Census Bureau has produced numerous reports on the development of the ACS that are available at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/acs_census/.

Universe and Sample Design

The ACS currently collects data each year from a sample drawn from the universe of U. S. households. The universe does not include the population living in “group quarters.” Group quarters include individuals living in nursing homes, prisons, college dormitories, juvenile institutions, and emergency and transitional shelters for those experiencing homelessness. A sample of persons living in group quarters is scheduled to be included in 2006.

The sample design for the current national comparison sample is a two-stage stratified sample. Population estimates based upon the sample have some degree of sampling error and non-sampling error. Standard errors and confidence intervals that account for the sample design describe the degree of uncertainty in the estimates due to sampling error and some forms of non-sampling error. Appendix A provides additional information on the sample design for the ACS and the ACS PUMS ; describes the efforts that the Census Bureau uses to minimize non-sampling error; and describes methods that account for the sample design that may be used to compute standard errors and confidence intervals for population estimates.

Data Collection Methodology

The survey uses three different methods to collect data from households: (1) a survey delivered by mail where a household member is responsible for completing the survey and mailing it back to the Census; (2) a telephone survey conducted by a Census Bureau employee using Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) technology; and (3) in-person interviews using Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) technology. A person referred to as the “householder,” who is usually a person who either owns the housing unit or who pays the rent for the housing unit, is responsible for completing the ACS questionnaire for the household. The Census Bureau first attempts to administer all of the questionnaires by mail. Approximately six weeks after the questionnaires are mailed, the Census Bureau begins conducting telephone interviews for all households who have not responded by mail and that have a telephone number. The Census Bureau identifies a sample of households that do not respond by mail or telephone and a trained Census Bureau field representative is sent to these households to conduct in-person interviews. The process results in high response rates, generally between 95 to 97 percent. For details on how the data are processed, see the ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.

Definitions

A description of the survey questions and a description of the methods used to produce data on disability, demographics, employment, and economic well-being are shown in Table 1.

Disability. The six disability questions in the 2003 ACS are based upon the 2000 Decennial Census disability questions designed by a federal interagency workgroup (Adler et al., 1999). The process used to develop the questions included an investigation of the content of other surveys and extensive testing using the Census Bureau cognitive questionnaire lab. At the conclusion of the process, the interagency workgroup agreed upon six questions that satisfied the space limitations imposed by the Census Bureau. Although the workgroup acknowledged the level of difficulty in measuring disability in a set of six questions and that further methodological research is necessary, the questions have been regarded as an improvement over prior Census Bureau questions used to gather information on the disability population (National Council on Disability, 2004).

The questions are described in the first section of Table 1a. The first three questions (Q15a, Q15b, Q16a) are for all household members ages 5 and older and are consistent with the impairment concept from the ICF. They include classifications of long lasting health conditions that are associated with disability, including: severe sensory impairments (hearing, vision); long lasting physical impairments (substantially limits one or more of the following activities walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying); and health conditions that result in mental impairments (learning, remembering, or concentrating).

The ACS also includes three questions that the federal interagency workgroup determined were necessary for program and policy purposes. The first of these questions, Question 16b, is for all household members ages 5 and older. It is consistent with the ICF activity limitations concept and identifies health conditions lasting at least six months that affect the performance of activities of daily living (dressing, bathing or getting around inside the home). The other two questions in the 2003 Questionnaire, Questions 17a and 17b, are for all household members ages 15 and older. They identify health conditions lasting at least six months that affect participation in usual life activities such as going outside the home alone to visit a doctor’s office or going shopping, and working at a job or business. These questions are consistent with the ICF participation restriction concept.

The Census Bureau uses these six questions to identify seven disability categories that are described in Table 1a. They are: a sensory disability if the person has a “yes” response to question Q; a physical disability if the person has a “yes” response to question Q15b; a mental disability if the person has a “yes” response to question 16a; a self-care disability if the person has a “yes” response to Q16b; a go-outside-the-home disability if the person has a “yes” response to Q17a; and employment disability if the person has a “yes” response to Q17b.

The Census Bureau created a seventh category, referred to as a disability, as a “yes” response to at least one of the six disability questions. This definition is similar to the ICF use of the term disability (see Figure 1) in that it includes impairments, activity limitations, or participation restrictions. For more information on the disability questions, see: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Disabili.htm.

Demographics. Data on demographics are drawn from the “list of residents” section of the ACS and includes age, gender, race, and ethnic origin. Question 1 identifies a household member’s gender from the question, “What is this person’s sex?” Question 2 identifies a household member’s age from the question, “What is this person’s date of birth?” Questions 5 identifies whether a household member is Spanish/Hispanic/Latino from the question, “Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? Mark X the “no” box if not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” Finally, Question 6 identifies the household member’s race from the question “What is this person’s race? Mark X one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be.” The Census Bureau uses these two questions to construct race categories as described in Table 1b.

Information on education for each household member is identified in the “person” section of the survey. The ACS includes three questions on education. Two of the questions are related to recent participation in an educational program. The third question, Question 11, asks, “what is the highest degree or level of school this person has completed?” For persons currently enrolled in an educational program, the ACS provides instructions to provide the highest grade completed or the highest degree received. The householder is presented a list of possible responses and is asked to identify the highest level of education that each household member has completed. The possible responses to the survey question include: no schooling; nursery school to fourth grade; fifth grade or sixth grade; seventh grade or eighth grade; ninth grade; tenth grade; eleventh grade; twelfth grade no diploma; high school graduate; some college credit, but less than one year; one or more years of college; Associate Degree (e.g., AA, AS); Bachelor’s degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS); Master’s degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEng, Med, MSW, MBA); Professional degree (e.g., MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD); or Doctorate Degree (e.g., PhD, EdD).

Employment Measures. The Census Bureau definition of employment status is drawn from two questions. Table 1c describes the ACS information on the employment status of each household member age 16 and older. A household member is considered employed if he or she met one of the two following criteria: (1) are “at work” during the reference period—that is, worked as a paid employee, worked in their own business or profession, worked on their own farm, or worked 15 or more hours as unpaid workers on a family farm or business, or (2) were “with a job but not at work” during the reference period—that is, they had a job but temporarily did not work at that job during the reference period due to illness, bad weather, industrial dispute, vacation or other personal reasons. The reference period is defined as the week before the date that the householder completed the questionnaire.

There are at least two other employment measures that have been used to measure the employment rate of persons with disabilities. These measures capture employment status over a year-long period. The first measure is referred to as “any attachment to the labor force” and defines employment as at least 52 hours of employment during the reference year. The second is referred to as “year–round full-time” employment. It is defined by the Census Bureau as 50 to 52 weeks in the previous year and at least 35 hours per week during that year.

Income and Poverty Data. The economic well-being measures use information from the ACS on annual income, family size, family composition, household size and household composition. The section labeled income in Table 1d describes the income measures and summarizes the method used by the Census Bureau to construct a poverty measure.

The income measure uses income received in the past 12 months (i.e., income received in the year preceding the completion of the survey) from each individual household member. For a household that completes the survey in July 2004, the year is July 2003 to June 2004. The questions are located in the “person” section of the survey. Questions 41a through 41h are used to collect information on the following sources of income: wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs (before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues or other items); self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships (net income after business expenses); interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from real estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); any public assistance or welfare payments from the State or local welfare office; retirement, survivor or disability pensions (not including social security); and any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support or alimony (not including lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home). Annual total income is the sum of all of the income sources for the household member.

The poverty measure is computed based upon the standards defined in Directive 14 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These standards use poverty thresholds created in 1982 and index these thresholds to 2003 dollars using poverty factors based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). They use the family as the income sharing unit and family income is the sum of total income from each family member living in the household. The poverty threshold depends upon the size of the family; the age of the householder (i.e., the person who owns or pays rent for the housing unit and who fills out the ACS questionnaire for the household) for one member families and two member families; and the number of related children under the age of 18. In Appendix B, Appendix Table 1 shows the 2003 poverty threshold. Family income is compared to the relevant poverty threshold to determine the poverty status of families.

In some cases, members of the household may be unrelated to the head. The poverty threshold for these members is based upon the person’s own total income. The poverty measure uses a different threshold, as shown in Appendix Table B-1, for a member of a household who is unrelated to the householder. A poverty measure is not created for unrelated household members who are under the age of 15 because the ACS does not collect income information from persons under the age of 15.

The second measure used to examine economic well-being is the median family income-to-needs ratio. The family income-to-needs ratio is defined as a family’s income divided by the income level associated with the poverty line for the family. It is referred to as the income-to-needs ratio because the income level associated with the poverty line represents the amount required to purchase the basic needs of the family. A value above 1 represents family income that is greater than the poverty line. For example, a value of 1.5 represents family income that is 1.5 times the income level associated with the poverty line for the family. A value below 1 represents family income that is less than the poverty line. For example, a value of 0.5 represents family income that is half of the income associated with the poverty line for the family. Lower values are associated with lower levels of economic well-being. The median family income-to-needs ratio sorts persons in a defined group by their family income-to-needs ratio from the lowest value to the highest value, and uses the value of the person who is in the middle (i.e., at the 50th percentile). While the poverty measure shows the percentage of the distribution below the poverty line (i.e., the percentage in the lower tail of the distribution), the median family income-to-needs ratio shows how the middle person in the distribution is doing relative to the poverty line. It therefore provides another way to characterize the family size adjusted economic well-being of different groups.

Poverty statistics and the income-to-needs ratio do not adjust for expenses that are the result of a health condition or a disability (e.g., personal assistance, equipment, medications, etc.). They also do not adjust for in-kind benefits, such as health insurance, food stamps, housing, transportation, child-care, etc. For both reasons, household income relative to the poverty line is substantially limited as an indicator of a household’s poverty if the household contains a person with a disability. Further details on the ACS poverty measure are available from the U. S. Census Bureau ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm

Two other measures of economic well-being are included that use both related and unrelated members of the household as the income sharing unit. The first measure is total household income. It does not adjust for household size. The second measure is household size adjusted income. It assumes that the income needed to achieve a level of economic well-being is lower for those who live in the same household than it is to live in separate households. That is, by sharing housing and other resources, less income is needed to achieve a certain level of economic well-being. The measure is usually described by the following formula.


Equation (1) - Household size adjusted income equals household income divided by the value of the number of persons in the household raised to the power of parameter e.

Where e is a parameter with a value between 0 and 1 and represents the degree of sharing (i.e., economies of scale) within the household. When e equals 0, the measure assumes that income needed is independent of household size. For example, the measure assumes a household with 5 members needs the same income as a household with one member to achieve a certain level of economic well-being. When e equal 1, the measure assumes that there is no sharing of resources within the household. For example, the measure assumes that a household with 5 members needs 5 times the income as a household with one member to achieve the same level of economic well-being. While there is no universal agreement on the value of the e parameter, there is empirical evidence that shows that setting e=0.5 makes a reasonable adjustment for the degree of sharing within the household (see Ruggles 1990 p. 77; and Citro and Michael, 1995). Citro and Michael (1995) provide a good description of household adjusted income and economic well-being measures. This paper uses a value of e equal to 0.5 in the computation of household size adjusted income.

Endorsements

Although the ACS is a relatively new data source, it has already received public endorsements from more than 40 public and private entities. The entities include the U. S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Council of Black Mayors, the National Congress of American Indians, the Rural Policy Research Institute, and the Consortium of Social Science Associations. Several organizations have also passed resolutions in support of the ACS , including the National Council of Mayors, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Association of Black County Officials, and the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials. The endorsements and resolutions recognize the importance of the ACS in making informed and timely decisions on how to allocate resources.

Dissemination

The U. S. Census Bureau disseminates hundreds of ACS summary data tables to the public at the national level, the State level, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level, and county level. The ACS summary data tables are available on the Census Bureau’s American Factfinder site (http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en) and are also available from the Census on CD-ROM. The summary tables provide users with easily accessible data aggregated to the geographic level.

An ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ) is also available from the U. S. Census Bureau. The PUMS contains data at the household level and person level. The Census Bureau uses procedures to assure the confidentiality of these data. These procedures result in statistically insignificant differences in estimates between the ACS summary data and ACS PUMS data. The PUMS data allow users to produce customized statistics that are not available from the Census Bureau summary tables.

PUMS data for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 are available from the Census Bureau. The ACS has changed over time and these changes, and their implications, are described below.

Changes to the ACS and Implications

The ACS has changed over time and will likely undergo further changes in the future. The changes include the introduction of a new population weighting and editing methodology for the ACS after the release of the 2000 ACS data, a new sampling methodology for the PUMS introduced after the 2000 ACS PUMS data release, and a change in the structure of the disability questions that was introduced in the 2003 ACS . These changes can have implications on estimates of the trends in disability over time.

2000 ACS PUMS Weights and Editing Methodology

The Census Bureau changed the method used to perform edits and to construct population weights after releasing the 2000 ACS data. The Census Bureau replaced all of the 2000 ACS tables with tables that used the new weights and editing methodology so the tables distributed through the Census Bureau American Factfinder website are now consistent over time. They have not replaced the 2000 ACS Public Use Microdata Sample, so the 2000 ACS PUMS population weights and editing methodology are based upon the old methodology and the subsequent years of ACS PUMS data are based upon the new methodology. As a result, it is possible that differences between the 2000 ACS PUMS estimates and estimates based upon subsequent years of data are due to differences in the population weights and editing methodology and not entirely due to actual differences in the population.

Appendix B includes a table that suggests that the difference in population weights and editing methodology may have a significant impact on estimates from the 2000 ACS . It compares tables from the 2000 ACS data that are distributed by the Census Bureau American Factfinder site that use the new ACS population weights to estimates using the old weights from the 2000 ACS PUMS . The tables suggest that the differences due to the population weights may be significant and important.

Users should be aware of the difference in the population weights and editing methodology between the 2000 ACS PUMS and the PUMS from later years when examining changes to the disability population from the year 2000 onward.

Changes to the PUMS Sampling Methodology

The ACS PUMS sampling methodology differed between the 2000 ACS PUMS and the later years. In 2000, the Census Bureau’s Disclosure Review Board limited the sampling rate. In 2001, the Disclosure Review Board allowed the Census Bureau to increase the sampling rate in order to reduce the sampling error. This was also done in 2002 and 2003. As a result, the ACS PUMS from 2001 through 2003 includes many more cases than in 2000 ACS PUMS and, as a result, there is relatively lower degree of uncertainty in the estimates associated with sampling error.

Users should be aware of the difference in sampling methodology between the 2000 ACS PUMS and the PUMS from later years when examining changes to the disability population from the year 2000 onward.

Changes to the Disability Questions

In 2003, the ACS made a change to the structure of the last two disability questions. Between 2000 and 2002, the disability questions were structured as follows:

Q15. Does this person have any of the following long lasting conditions:

a.       Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment?

b.      A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?

 

Q16. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:

a.       Learning, remembering, or concentrating?

b.      Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home?

 

c.       (Answer this if the person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?

d.      (Answer this if the person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.)Working at a job or business?

An analysis of the data by Stern and Brault (2005) suggests that some of the people responding to questions 16c and 16d may not have understood that it was linked to the introductory sentence, “Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities.” Some sample members may have responded as if the introductory sentence did not exist, which can lead to a different interpretation of the question. For example, without the introductory sentence, a person may misinterpret question 16d. as “are you working at a job or business?” A “yes” to this interpretation to the question would indicate that they are currently working, not that they have a health condition that makes it difficult for them to work at a job or business. Therefore, it is possible that these last two questions identified some people, who may not have a disability, as a person with a disability.

In 2003, the Census Bureau restructured the disability questions as follows.

Q15. Does this person have any of the following long lasting conditions:

c.       Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment?

d.      A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?

 

Q16. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:

a.       Learning, remembering, or concentrating?

b.      Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home?

 

Answer Question 17 only if this person is age 15 or older. Otherwise skip to question for Person 2 on page 10.

 

Q17. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:

a.       Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?

b.      Working at a job or business?

 

While this change may appear to be minor, there was a major change in the employment rates and economic well-being estimates for the population with disabilities that occurred between the 2002 ACS and the 2003 ACS . Appendix Table A2 shows the changes over time in the prevalence, employment, and poverty rates of the population identified as having a disability based upon these last two questions. The differences are large, and it is possible that the difference is due to a change in the structure of the survey.

Users should be aware that differences between estimates from the ACS disability data before the 2003 survey may differ from the 2003 ACS estimates because of this difference in the questionnaire. The difference is likely to affect the ACS overall disability definition, the go-outside-the-home disability definition and the employment disability definition. It is likely that the other four disability questions were not affected by the change in the questionnaire and may be used to estimate changes over time.

Future Changes

The American Community Survey (ACS ) advisory committee established a subcommittee to re-examine the disability questions in the ACS . The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) was asked to lead the subcommittee. They have made recommendations to the full committee on proposed changes to the disability questions. The Census Bureau will field test these questions before making a decision to include the questions in the ACS . While the proposed questions have not been scheduled to be included in the ACS , it is possible that they will be introduced into the survey in the future. Users should pay special attention to the structure of the disability questions in the ACS and be aware that they may change.

ACS Description of Disability Population

Disability can have different implications for employment and economic well-being at different ages. In this paper, we first identify different age groups that reflect differences in activities. These age groups are: primary and secondary school age persons between the ages of 5 to 17, school-to-work transition age persons between the ages of 18 and 24, working age persons between the ages of 25 to 61, early Social Security retirement age persons between the ages of 62 and 64, and normal Social Security retirement age persons ages 65 and older. The ACS does not collect data on disability for household members under the age of 5 years old. In this paper, estimates of the employment rate and economic well-being of the population are based upon working age persons between the ages of 25 and 61.

Population estimates, prevalence estimates, and sample sizes from the 2003 ACS are presented in Table 2. The rows are broken down into sections for the population ages 5 and older and for each of the age categories identified in the previous paragraph. The columns identify the persons without a disability, those with a disability, and persons who report each one of the six disability types identified in the ACS . The disability types will not sum to the total population with a disability because individuals may report more than one disability type (i.e., the types are not mutually exclusive).

The column labeled disability shows that in 2003 an estimated 37,478,000 people ages 5 and older, or 14.2 percent of that population, report a disability. Of the two participation restrictions which are asked of all people ages 15 and older, approximately 21,391,000 people report an employment disability and 10,705,000 report a go-outside the home disability for prevalence rates of 9.8 percent and 4.9 percent, respectively. Of the activity limitations and impairments which are asked for all people ages 5 and older, an estimated 7,022,000 people report a self-care disability, 13,483,000 people report a mental disability, 23,593,000 people report a physical disability and 10,793,000 report a sensory disability. The prevalence rates are 2.7 percent, 5.1 percent, 9.0 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively.

Moving down to the age group categories shows that the group with largest number of people with a disability, approximately 17,146,000, is the working age population between the ages of 25 and 61. The table also shows that the prevalence of disability increases with age from 6.3 percent of the population between the ages 5 to 17 to 39.9 percent of the population ages 65 and older. Finally, the table shows that the composition of disability type changes with age. Mental disabilities are the most prevalent of the six disability types for those ages 5 to 17 and those ages 18 to 24 at 5.1 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Physical disabilities are the most prevalent of the six for those ages 25 to 61, 62 to 64 and 65 and older, with prevalence rates of 7.5 percent, 19.2 percent and 30.4 percent, respectively.

The distribution of age, gender, race and education characteristics within each disability group are shown in Table 3. The first section of the Table shows that the population without disabilities tends to be younger than the population with disabilities. The first column shows that a majority of the population without a disability is age 44 or younger, with 18.7 percent of the population between ages 5 and 14, 14.0 percent between 15 and 24, 16.1 percent between 25 and 34, 17.5 percent between 35 and 44. In sum, 66.3 percent of persons without a disability are between ages 5 and 44. The corresponding percent of the population with disabilities in the 5 to 44 age range is only 31.2 percent (7.5 percent + 5.9 percent +6.5 percent+11.3 percent). The age differences are similar for the other disability categories in the ACS , with the notable exception of mental disabilities where 16.9 percent of the population with a mental disability is between the ages of 5 and 14 and 10.0 percent between the ages of 15 and 24.

The next section of the Table shows differences by gender. Approximately 51 percent of the population without disabilities is female compared to 52.8 percent of the population with disabilities. The table shows that the largest gender compositional differences are among the go-outside the home and self-care disabilities, where 63.6 percent and 58.9 percent of the respective populations are women.

The ACS data show the population with disabilities tends to have a greater share of black and Native Americans, and a smaller share of Asians, compared to the population without a disability. Approximately 13.8 percent of the population with a disability are black and 1.1 percent are Native Americans compared to corresponding percentages of 11.7 percent and 0.7 percent of the population without a disability. The population with disabilities that are Asian is 2.4 percent compared to the 4.5 percent of the population without disabilities who are Asian. The share of persons with a disability who report Hispanic ethnicity is 9.6 percent, or smaller than the 14.0 percent of the population without a disability that reports Hispanic ethnicity.

Finally, the table shows that the population with a disability consists of a greater share of people with low levels of education compared to the population without disabilities. This section of the table focuses on the working age population, those between the ages of 25 to 61, in order to reduce age-related differences in educational level and to provide a context for the working age population tables in the next section. An estimated 25.0 percent of those working age population with disabilities has less than high school education and another 33.6 percent only has a high school education, while the corresponding numbers for those without a disability are 11.6 percent and 28.0 percent respectively.

ACS Employment and Economic Well Being Estimates

The 2003 ACS shows that the employment rates for persons with a disability are lower than the employment rates for persons without a disability. Table 4 shows this result for each of the three employment measures for the working age population. The first section shows that while 79.5 percent of the population without a disability was employed during the reference week, only 39.3 percent of the population with a disability was employed during the period. The annual employment measures show that the larger percentages of both populations were employed sometime in the previous year, 87.1 percent of persons without a disability and 48.9 percent of persons with a disability, and smaller percentages, 59.6 percent and 24.5 percent, were employed full-time year round. Among the six disability types, the highest employment rates are for the population with sensory disabilities and the lowest are for those with self-care disabilities. The rest of the table shows differences across all of the disability categories for gender, race and education level subgroups. The employment rates are lower for women than they are for men, are lower for minorities than they are for whites, and are lower for those with less education. However, the table also points to differences in employment rates between those with and without a disability among the black population and the population with less than a high school education. Among the black population, 76.9 percent of the population without a disability was employed during the reference period compared to only 30.4 percent of the population with a disability. Among the population with a less than high school education, 67.0 percent of those without a disability were employed during the reference week compared to only 25.2 percent of those with a disability.

The economic well-being of the population with disabilities is substantially worse that that of the population without disabilities based upon the four measures presented in Table 5. The first row of the table shows that 7.7 percent of the population without a disability is below the poverty line compared to 23.7 percent of the population with a disability. Among the six disability types, the poverty rates are lowest for those with a sensory disability, with a rate of 20.8 percent, and highest for those with a mental disability, with a rate of 30.8 percent.

The next row shows the median income to needs ratio. The median family income for persons without disabilities is 3.8 times the needs standard used for the poverty line. For those with a disability, the median family income is 2.2 times the poverty line. Differences by disability type show the highest median family income-to-needs ratio for persons with a sensory disability, with a family income level 2.5 times the poverty line, and the lowest median family income-to-needs ratio for persons with a mental disability, with a family income level only 1.7 times the poverty line.

Median household income among those without a disability is approximately $60,000 per year compared to $34,600 among the population with a disability. Median Household income is lowest for those with a mental disability, at $27,400, and highest for those with a sensory disability, $38,000.

Finally, adjustments for household size show similar disparities. The last row shows that the median household size adjusted income is $35,796 for persons without disabilities and $21,304 for persons with disabilities. Adjusting for household size has a larger impact on the population without disabilities because persons without disabilities tend to live in households with more members compared to persons with disabilities. Median adjusted household income is highest for persons with a sensory disability at $23,413 and is lowest for persons with a mental disorder at $17,321.

The rest of the table shows that the economic well being measures also differ by gender, race and education level. The poverty rates for the black population with disabilities and those with less than high school education are the highest at 36.4 percent and 36.5 percent, respectively. These two groups also have the lowest median family-income-to-needs ratios, median household income and median household size adjusted income.

ACS State Level Estimates

An advantage of the ACS is that the sample is large enough to support State level estimates of disability prevalence rates, employment rates and economic well-being measures. Sample sizes for each State by disability type are shown in Appendix E. The ACS State level estimates point to significant difference in the disability population across States. State level policymakers can use the data to track the progress of the population with disabilities within their State. They may also use the data to make comparisons across States and over time.

Table 6 shows State level prevalence rates for all of the ACS disability categories for those between the ages of 25 and 61. The table shows that that the prevalence of disability is highest in West Virginia at 21.2 percent, Mississippi at 19.2 percent and Kentucky at 18.0 percent. The disability prevalence rate is lowest in New Jersey at 8.9 percent, Colorado at 9.0 percent and Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota at 9.2 percent. The median State is Georgia with a prevalence rate of 12.0 percent. The table shows differences across States in terms of the other six disability questions.

State level employment rates are shown in Table 7. They range from over 54 percent in South Dakota (55.7 percent), Wyoming (54.6 percent) and Alaska (54.0 percent) to below 31 percent in West Virginia (27 percent), Kentucky (29.1 percent), and Alabama (30.9 percent). The median State is Missouri with an employment rate of 40.8 percent. Differences across States also exist for the population without disabilities, as shown in the second column of the Table. The column shows that employment rates range from lows of 75.4 percent in West Virginia, 76.6 percent in California, and 77.4 percent in New Mexico and Oklahoma, to highs of 86.5 percent in Nebraska, 86.2 percent in Vermont, and 86.1 percent in North Dakota. Thus, to some degree, the differences in employment rate for the population with disabilities may arise due to differences in the labor market environment.

To account for the differences that might arise across States due to the labor market environment, the relative employment rates are shown in the third column. The relative rate is the employment rate for the population with disability divided by the employment rate for the population without disabilities. It provides a measure of the disparity within a State between the employment rate for the population with a disability and the rate for the population without a disability. For example a relative rate value of 40 percent indicates that the employment rate for those with disabilities is only 40 percent of the employment rate for those without disabilities. The table shows large differences in relative employment rates across States. These differences range from lows of 35.8 percent in West Virginia, 37.1 percent in Kentucky and 38.8 percent in Alabama, to highs of 68.2 percent in Alaska, 65.5 percent in Wyoming and 65.2 percent in South Dakota.

State level poverty rates are shown in Table 8. They range from a relatively high rate of 31.3 percent in Louisiana, Mississippi and New Mexico to relatively low rates of 13.8 percent in Alaska, 15.2 percent in Utah and 17.3 percent in New Hampshire. The median State is Missouri with a poverty rate of 22.6 percent. The second column shows that the poverty rates differ by State for the population without disabilities, suggesting that part of the difference in the poverty rates for persons with disabilities across States may be due to differences in the State economic environment. These differences range from lows of 4.0 percent in Minnesota, 4.5 percent in New Hampshire and 4.6 percent in Virginia, to highs of 11.9 percent in Louisiana, 12.1 percent in West Virginia, and 12.7 percent in Delaware.

To account for differences in economic conditions across States, we include the relative poverty rate in the last column. The relative poverty rate is the poverty rate for the population with disabilities divided by the poverty rate for the population without disabilities. A value of 1.8 indicates that the poverty rate for the population with disabilities is 1.8 times greater than the poverty rate for the population without disabilities. The relative rates range from lows of 2.1 in Utah and 2.2 in Alaska and Arizona, to relatively high disparities of 4.7 in Minnesota, 4.8 in Rhode Island and 4.9 in Nebraska. It is important to note that these large relative rates result more from the very low levels of poverty for the population without disabilities rather than higher than average rates of poverty for persons with disabilities.

Median Household Income levels for working age persons with disabilities also vary across States. Table 9 shows differences across States in median household income levels for persons with disabilities compared to persons without disabilities. It does not adjust for household size or composition.

The first row of the table shows the values for Alabama. The first column shows that the median household income working age person without a disability is $51,000 in the year prior to the 2003 survey. The second column shows that the median household income level for working age persons with a disability is $25,700 in the year prior to the 2003 survey. The next column shows the relative rate, defined as the median household income of working age persons with a disability divided by the median household income of working age persons without a disability, in percentage terms. In Alabama, the household income of persons with a disability is 50.4 percent of the household income of persons without a disability. The rest of the columns show the median household income level of households with a working age person who reports a specific disability type in the ACS .

Median income for the population with disabilities is highest, $50,000, in Hawaii. It is followed by Connecticut and New Hampshire, where the median household income for persons with disabilities is $46,100 and $45,800 respectively. Median household income for persons with disabilities is lowest in Louisiana at $25,400, followed by Alabama and Kentucky where the levels are $25,700 and $25,800 respectively.

The absolute amounts do not account for differences in economic conditions across States. To account for differences in economic conditions across States, the third column shows the median household income of persons with disabilities relative to the median household income of those without disabilities. It is defined as the median household income of persons with disabilities divided by the median household income of persons without disabilities. Compared to the population without disabilities, the median income of persons with disabilities is highest in Utah, where the median household income of persons with disabilities is 75.9 percent of the median household income level for persons without disabilities. Utah is follows by South Dakota and Wyoming, with relative rates of 72.1 percent and 71.8 percent respectively. The State with the lowest levels of median income relative to persons without a disability is Delaware, where the median household income of persons with disabilities is 48.3 percent of those without disabilities. It is followed by Louisiana and Alabama, with relative rates of 49.6 percent and 50.4 percent, respectively.

ACS Disability Trends 2000 to 2003

The ACS data can also be used to examine time trends. Table 10 shows trends from 2000 to 2003 for disability prevalence rates, employment rates, and poverty rates. Because of the change in the questionnaire that affected the go-outside the home disability question and the work disability question (as explained in Section V of this Guide), the trends in this guide focus on disability as defined by the presence of a sensory disability, physical disability, mental disability or a self-care disability. It is important to note that this limited definition misses part of the population that may have a go-outside-the-home disability or an employment disability and who do not report one of the other four disability questions in the ACS . While we cannot directly estimate the size of this population for 2000 through 2002, in 2003 approximately 10.1 percent of persons who reported at least one of the six disabilities reported yes to only the go-outside the home and/or the employment disability questions. Trends for each of these four disability types used to identify a disability are also included.

The first section of Table 10 shows that the prevalence of one of the four specific disability types has remained relatively constant over time. In 2000, 10.8 percent of the working age population reported that they had at least one of the four disability types. The estimate dropped to 10.6 percent in 2001, returned to 10.8 percent in 2002, and is 10.7 percent in 2003. The prevalence of each of the four disability types is also similar over time. The prevalence rates are between 1.9 and 2.0 percent for self-care disabilities, between 3.8 percent and 4.0 percent for mental disabilities, 7.3 percent and 7.5 percent for physical disabilities, and 2.7 percent and 2.9 percent for sensory disabilities.

The second section of Table 10 shows that the employment rates for persons with and without disabilities have declined from 2000 to 2003. The first column of the section shows that employment among the working age population without a disability declined from 80.7 percent in 2000 to 79.5 percent in 2003. The employment rates for those who reported one of the four disabilities fell from 45.2 percent in 2000 to 40.0 percent in 2003. The Table shows that the decline is evident in each of the four disability types.

The final section of Table 10 shows that the poverty rate for persons with and without disabilities has risen from 2000 to 2003. The first section of the Table shows that in 2000, the poverty rate for those without a disability was 7.4 percent. By 2003, it increased to 7.8 percent. For those who report one of the four disability types, poverty increased from 21.9 percent in 2000 to 23.9 percent by 2003. The increase in the poverty rate is also evident across each of the four disability types.

Comparisons to Other Data Sources

The ACS is one of several nationally representative datasets that may be used to estimate the number of people with disabilities, the prevalence of persons with disabilities, the employment rate of persons with disabilities and the economic well-being of persons with disabilities. Different surveys use different methods to collect information on persons with disabilities and these differences can lead to differences in estimates. This section shows how the ACS estimates of the population compare to estimates from other nationally representative surveys.

The national datasets used for the comparison include: the 2000 Decennial Census, the March 2004 Current Population Survey (CPS), the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the 1994 National Health Interview Survey-Disability Supplement, the 2001 Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the 2002 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The year associated with each dataset represents the actual year that the survey was administered. The March 2004 CPS collects annual income and annual labor supply information for the 2003 calendar year. Details on the methods used to collect information on persons with disabilities in each of these surveys may be found in the corresponding Cornell StatsRRTC User Guides.

Differences in estimates may be related to differences in the population over time. Thus, it is important to pay special attention to the survey year when comparing estimates across the surveys. The 2000 Decennial Census Long Form, for example, is representative of the year 2000. Changes in the population, the labor market and the economic environment between the year 2000 and the year 2003 can affect population estimates, prevalence estimates, employment estimates and economic well-being estimates.

Each comparison table defines disability as the presence of a participation restriction, an activity limitation, or an impairment. It is important to note that the second participation restriction is now referred to as Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs). This term captures a broader set of participation restrictions than the ACS "go-outside the home" definition. It also includes participation restrictions that affect a person's ability to: manage money and keep track of bills, prepare meals, and do work around the house.

Some datasets are limited to identifying a disability based upon a participation restriction. This is evident in the table by looking across the columns that identify the ICF disability concepts. A “NA” entry indicates that specific information on the particular ICF concept is not available in the survey. Disability is defined in these cases only based upon the information that is available in the survey. For example, the CPS only contains information on a work limitation. The definition of disability in the CPS is therefore based solely on whether the person has a work limitation. In Figure 1, this definition captures a portion of persons who fall within the participation restriction circle.

The comparisons are made across the working-age population. There are two reasons for this decision. First, most of the nationally representative surveys focus on the working age population. Second, among the subset of surveys that identify children with disabilities, there are relatively large differences in the methods used to define and identify disability, and it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons. Further research on methods used to identify children with disabilities is needed.

Population and Prevalence Estimates

The ACS population and prevalence rate estimates are lower than estimates from datasets that use a larger set of questions to estimate the size of the population with disabilities and higher than estimates from datasets that use a smaller set of questions. Table 11 shows differences across surveys in the size of the population with disabilities. The first section of the table shows the ACS estimate of approximately 1,667,000 persons between the ages of 18 and 24 with a disability. It is lower than the 2,426,000 estimate from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the 2,126,000 estimate from the NHIS, which both use a much larger set of survey questions to identify persons with disabilities. It is larger than the estimates from the Census 2000, the March 2004 Current Population Survey, and the 2001 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), which use a smaller set of survey questions.

The rest of the table shows comparisons for other age groups. The 2003 ACS shows 17,146,000 persons with disabilities in the 25 to 61 year age group. It is smaller than the 26,620,000 in the SIPP and the 23,192,000 in the NHIS. The PSID estimate of 20,054,000 is also slightly higher than the ACS estimate. The ACS estimate is larger than the population estimates for the March 2004 CPS and the 2000 Census long form.

Table 12 shows estimates for prevalence rates. The first section of the table shows the 2003 ACS disability prevalence rate estimate of 6.5 percent for the population between the ages of 18 and 24. It is lower than the SIPP estimate of 8.9 percent, very similar to the NHIS estimate of 7.8 percent, and higher than estimates based upon the Census 2000, the CPS and the PSID. For the working age population between the ages of 25 and 61, the 2002 ACS data shows that 11.9 percent of the population reports a disability. The ACS estimate is lower than the 18.7 percent reported in the SIPP, the 16.7 percent reported in the NHIS, and the 14.6 percent reported in the PSID. It is higher than the 10.1 percent reported in the Census 2000 and the 8.2 percent reported in the CPS. For the population age 62 to 64, the ACS data show a prevalence rate estimate of 26.7 percent. The ACS estimate is lower than the SIPP estimate of 39.5 percent and the NHIS estimate of 32.5 percent, is similar to the PSID estimate of 30.1 percent, and is higher than the Census 2000 estimate of 22.7 percent and the March 2004 CPS estimate of 18.9 percent. For the population ages 18 to 64, the ACS data shows a prevalence rate of 11.7 percent. It is lower than the 17.9 percent estimate in the SIPP, the 15.8 percent estimate in the NHIS, and the 14.7 percent estimate in the PSID. It is higher than the Census 2000 estimate of 9.9 percent and the March 2004 CPS estimate of 7.9 percent.

Employment Rate Estimates

The employment rate estimates in the ACS using the reference week measure and the some attachment to the labor force measure fall in the lower end of the range of estimates from national surveys. The ACS full-time full-year employment rate estimate is higher than estimates from other surveys. Table 13 illustrates these findings. The 2003 ACS reference period measure shows an employment rate estimate of 79.5 percent for persons without disabilities and 39.3 percent for persons with a disability. For those without a disability, the ACS is relatively lower than estimates from other national surveys. For those with a disability, it is lower than the PSID estimate of 53.2 percent, the SIPP estimate of 48.9 percent, the NHIS estimate of 47.3 percent and the Census 2000 estimate of 41.8 percent. It is higher than the March 2004 CPS estimate of 19.6 percent. The ACS employment rate estimate using the some attachment to the labor force measure for persons with disabilities is 48.9 percent. It is lower than the 2001 PSID estimate of 67.8 percent, the 2002 SIPP estimate of 61.1 percent, the 2002 NHIS estimate of 57.9 percent, and the 2000 Census estimate of 51.9 percent. It is larger than the March 2004 CPS estimate of 27.9 percent which represents attachment to the labor force in the 2003 calendar year. The ACS full-time full-year estimate for persons with disabilities is 24.5 percent. It is lower than the 2001 PSID estimate of 45.1 percent, the 2002 SIPP estimate of 31.1 percent, the 2002 NHIS estimate of 29.8 percent, and the Census 2000 estimate of 27.1 percent. It is lower than the March 2004 CPS estimate of 9.4 percent which represents full-time full-year work during the 2003 calendar year.

Economic Well-Being Estimates

The poverty rate estimates from the 2003 ACS are in the higher end of the range of estimates from other surveys, the household income measure estimate is middle of the range of estimates from other surveys, and the household size adjusted income measure is in the middle of the range of estimates from many of the other surveys. Table 14 compares poverty rate estimates across the datasets. The 2003 ACS poverty rate estimate for the working age population without a disability is 7.7 percent. It is slightly lower than the 7.9 percent estimate from the Census 2000 and the 8.0 percent estimate from the March 2004 CPS. It is larger than the 4.6 percent estimate from the 2001 PSID, the 5.0 percent estimate from the 2002 NHIS and the 6.5 percent estimate from the 2002 SIPP. The 2003 ACS poverty rate estimate for those with a disability is 23.7 percent. It is lower than the 28.8 percent estimate from the March 2004 CPS. It is higher than the poverty rate estimates of 11.8 percent from the 2001 PSID, 15.7 percent from the 2002 NHIS, 18.8 percent from the 2003 SIPP, and 23.2 percent from the Census 2000. The remaining columns show poverty rates across disability datasets by the disability type.

The last two sections of Table 14 compare median household income and median household size adjusted income across datasets. These estimates are not adjusted for inflation. For persons without a disability, the median household income is $60,000. It is larger than the $53,313 estimate in the SIPP and the $56,860 estimate in the Census 2000. It is slightly lower than the $61,999 estimate from the 2004 March CPS and the $62,000 estimate from the 2001 PSID. For persons with a disability, the median household income estimate in the ACS is $34,600. It is larger than March 2004 estimate of $27,955, the Census 2000 estimate of $33,600, and the 2002 SIPP estimate of $33,895. It is smaller than the 2001 PSID estimate of $42,000.

The final section of the Table shows median household size adjusted income estimates across datasets. The ACS estimate for persons without a disability is $35,796, which is similar to estimates from the 2000 Census and the 2002 CPS, and lower than estimates from the 2001 PSID. For persons with a disability, the ACS estimate is $21,304. It is higher than estimates from the 2002 CPS and the 2000 Census, and lower than the estimate from the 2001 PSID.

Summary and Conclusions

This guide carefully described the information on the disability population from the new Census Bureau survey called the American Community Survey (ACS ). It began with a description the ICF conceptual model of disability. The ICF provides a framework that may be used to assess the disability information in the ACS as well as the disability information in other surveys.

The guide then presented an overview of the survey methodology and definitions. The design of the ACS provides several advantages over other data collection efforts. First, it has gone through a rigorous testing phase and the results of the testing show that the data is reliable when compared to the 2000 Decennial Census long form. Second, the survey methodology and design result in a relative high response rate. The design also supports estimates at the national level, the State level, and, once fully implemented, the Metropolitan Statistical Area level and county level. Third, the disability questions were designed by a federal inter-agency workgroup and they were subjected to a systematic design and development process. Finally, the ACS provides a variety of employment and economic well-being indicators. The paper focuses on indicators commonly used in the literature but there are a number of other indicators that researchers may select from the ACS .

The utility of the ACS was illustrated using estimates from the ACS Public Use Microdata Sample on the population with disabilities, including: the size of the population, the prevalence rate, the demographic composition, the employment rate and economic well being measures. The estimates are presented at both the national and at the State level. At the national level, the ACS estimates show that there are approximately 41 million people in the U. S. population that does not live in “group quarters” and who are ages 5 and older. This implies a prevalence of disability is approximately 15.3 percent. Compared to the population without disabilities, the population with disabilities is older, more likely to be of African American and Native American decent, and more likely to have an education level below the high school level. The employment and economic well being measures show that even with the new improved disability data contained in the ACS , there are still large disparities between the population with disabilities and the population without disabilities. At the State level, the ACS estimates show significant differences in the prevalence of disability, employment and economic well-being. The differences exist both in absolute terms and when the differences are relative to the population within the State without a disability.

The ACS also allows users to examine trends over time. However, there are differences in the structure of the last two disability questions over time. Therefore, a modified definition of disability is required to examine time trends for the period from 2000 through 2003. Using this modified definition, we showed that the prevalence of disability remained relatively constant throughout the period, employment rates declined and poverty rates rose. While these trends follow the trends of the population without a disability and are related to the business cycle, they illustrate that the population with disabilities faced relatively larger declines, in percentage terms, in employment rates and relatively large increases, in percentage terms, in poverty rates. Time trends from 2003 onwards may use the full set of disability questions to better represent the population with disabilities.

Finally, this User Guide compared estimates from the ACS to other national surveys that collect information on the population with disabilities. The comparisons showed that surveys that use a larger number of questions to identify the population with disabilities tend to have higher estimates of the population with disabilities, higher disability prevalence estimates, higher disability employment rates, higher household median income levels for persons with disabilities and lower poverty rates for persons with disabilities. Estimates from the ACS fall within the middle of the range of estimates for the characteristics used in this guide.

In conclusion, while there are some limitations to the disability data collected in the ACS and further methodological research is required, the ACS disability data has been recognized as an improvement over prior Census Bureau surveys (National Council on Disability, 2004). As the ACS data collection effort continues, researchers and policymakers will be able to track changes in employment and economic indicators across States and over time. These differences may provide important information on how the labor market environment, the social environment and the policy environment influence the employment and economic well-being of the population with disabilities. The use of the ACS to monitor the progress of the population with disabilities and to provide insight into the environment that may influence progress will be an important component of the nation’s efforts to reach the goals of full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency for the population with disabilities.


 

References

Adler, Michele C., Robert F. Clark, Theresa J. DeMaio, Louisa F. Miller, and Arlene F. Saluter. 1999. “Collecting Information on Disability in the 2000 Census: An Example of Interagency Cooperation.” Social Security Bulletin Vol. 62 p. 21-30.

Bench, Katie. 2004. “Report #7: Comparing Quality Measures: Comparing the American Community Survey's Three-year Averages and Census 2000's Long Form Sample Estimates,” U. S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.

Burkhauser, Richard V., Andrew J. Houtenville and David C. Wittenburg. 2003. “A User’s Guide to Current Statistics on the Employment of People with Disabilities,” in David C. Stapleton and Richard V. Burkhauser eds. The Decline in Employment of People with Disabilities W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Citro, Constance F. and Robert T. Michael, Editors. 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. National Academy Press: Washington D.C.

Diffendal, Gregg, Rita Petroni and Andre Williams. 2004. “Report #8: Comparison of the ACS 3-year Average and the Census 2000 Sample for a Sample of Counties and Tracts,” U. S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.

Jette, Alan M. and Elizabeth Badley. 2000. “Conceptual Issues in the Measurement of Work Disability” in Nancy Mathiowetz and Gooloo Wunderlich eds. Survey of Measurement of Work Disability: Summary of a Workshop. National Academy Press.

Mathiowitz, Nancy. 2000. “Methodological Issues in the Measurement of Work Disability,” in Nancy Mathiowetz and Gooloo Wunderlich eds. Survey of Measurement of Work Disability: Summary of a Workshop. National Academy Press.

Nagi, Saad. 1965. “Some Conceptual Issues in Disability and Rehabilitation,” in Martin B. Sussman ed. Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Nagi, Saad. 1976. “An Epidemiology of Disability Among Adults in the United States,” Milibank Memorial Fund Quarterly: Health and Society vol. 54 p. 439-467.

National Council on Disability. 2004. “Improving Federal Disability Data,” NCD position paper released January 9, 2004.

Ruggles, Patricia. 1990. Drawing the Line—Alternative Poverty Measures and Their Implications for Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

Social Security Advisory Board. 2001. Charting the Future of Social Security’s Disability Programs: The Need for Fundamental Change. Social Security Advisory Board: Washington, DC.

Social Security Advisory Board. 2003. The Social Security Definition of Disability. Social Security Advisory Board: Washington, DC.

Stapleton, David and Richard V. Burkhauser, eds. 2003. The Decline in Employment of People with Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle. W.E. Upjohn Institute on Employment Research: Kalamazoo, MI.

Stern, Sharon and Matthew Brault. 2005. “Disability Data from the American Community Survey: A Brief Examination of the Effects of a Question Redesign in 2003,” U. S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division Working Paper.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 2003. American Community Survey Operations Plan. March 2003.

U. S. Bureau of the Census. 2004. E-mail correspondence with ACS staff regarding difference between ACS American Factfinder and ACS PUMS .

World Health Organization. 2001. International Classification of Disability, Health and Functioning. World Health Organization: Geneva.

Wunderlich, Gooloo S., Dorothy P. Rice, and Nicole L. Amado, Eds. 2002. The Dynamics of Disability: Measuring and Monitoring Disability for Social Security Programs. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Tables

Table 1a. Disability Definitions from the 2003 American Community Survey

Census Term

Question

Ages

 

Q15. Does this person have any of the following long lasting conditions:

 

Impairment: Sensory Disability

a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment?

Ages 5 and older

Impairment: Physical Disability

b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?

Ages 5 and older

 

Q16. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:

 

Impairment: Mental Disability

a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating?

Ages 5 and older

Activity Limitation: Self-care Disability

b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home?

Ages 5 and older

 

Q17. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:

 

Participation Restriction: Go-Outside-the-Home Disability

a. Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?

Ages 15 and older

Participation Restriction: Employment Disability

b. Working at a job or business?

Ages 15 and older

Disability

If a person responds yes to at least one of the six questions found in Q15, Q16 and Q17, then the Census classifies the person as having a disability.

Ages 5 and older

Source: Author's adaptation from ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Disabili.htm

 

Note: For 2000 through 2002, the ACS grouped Q17a and b under question 16 as 16c and 16d, and the questions were asked for household members 16 and older. See Section V of User Guide for a discussion of this change.

 


Table 1b. Demographic Definitions from the 2003 American Community Survey

Census Term

Question

Ages

Gender

(List of Residents Section) Q1. What is this person's sex?

All

Age

(List of Residents Section) Q2. What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth?

All

Race

(List of Residents Section) Q6. What is this person's race? Mark X one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. Responses include the following: White; Black or African-American; American Indian or Alaska Native (print name of enrolled or principal tribe); Asian Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; Other Asian (Print Race); Native Hawaiian; Guamanian or Chamarro; Samoan; Other Pacific Islander (Print Race Below); Some other race (print race below).

All

Census Race Recode

The Census Bureau recoded to the following: White Alone; Black or African American Alone; American Indian Alone; Alaska Native Alone; American Indian and Alaska Native Alone; Asian Alone; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone; Some other race alone; or two or more races. Alone means that this category was the only race category selected. The householder is allowed to select one or more races for a household member. See Census website for details of race recode.

All

Additional Recode

American Indian Alone, Alaska Native Alone, and American Indian and Alaska Native Alone are grouped into one category in this paper and called American Indian or Alaska Native.

All

Hispanic Origin

(List of Residents Section) Q5. Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? Mark X the "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino. Responses include the following: No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino; Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Cuban, Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (print group).

All

Hispanic Recode

Recoded to 1 if Yes to question, 2 if no to question.

 

Education

Q11. What is the highest level of schooling this person has completed? If currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received.

All

Education Recode: Less than High School

Nursery school to 4th grade; 5th grade or 6th grade; 7th grade or 8th grade; 9th grade; 10th grade; 11th grade; or 12th grade no diploma

All

High School

If response is high school graduate or equivalent (e.g., GED).

All

Greater than High School

If response indicates at least some college.

All

Source: Author's adaptation from ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def.htm


 

Table 1c. Employment Definitions from the 2003 American Community Survey

 

Question

Ages

ACS Question

Q22. LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the "Yes" box even if the person worked for only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces.

Ages 15 and older

ACS Question

Q28b. LAST WEEK, was the person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? (Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor dispute, etc.)

Ages 15 and older

ACS Question

Q32. During the PAST 12 MONTHS, How many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave and military service.

Ages 15 and older

ACS Question

Q33. During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS WORKED, how many hours did this person usually work each WEEK?

Ages 15 and older

Employment Definitions Employed: Reference Period

The person is classified as employed if they respond "yes" to Q22 or Q28b.

Ages 15 and older

Employment Definitions Employed: Sometime in Previous Year

At least 52 hours of work during the previous year. Determined by multiplying usual hours per week (Q33) by the number of weeks worked in past 12 months (Q32).

Ages 15 and older

Employment Definitions Employed: Full-time year round

At least 50 weeks during the previous year and at least 35 hours per week. Determined by condition that weeks worked is greater than or equal to 50 (from Q32) and usual hours per week is greater than or equal to 35 hours.

Ages 15 and older

Source: Author's adaptation from ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def.htm

 


 

Table 1d. ACS Economic Well-Being Measures from the 2003 American Community Survey

Census Term

Question

Ages

Income

(Person Section) Q40a-h. Asks the person to list the amount of income received from the following sources: wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs (before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues or other items); self-employment income from own non-farm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships (net income after business expenses); interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from real estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); any public assistance or welfare payments from the State or local welfare office; retirement, survivor or disability pensions (not including social security); and any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support or alimony (not including lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home).

Ages 15 and older

Poverty

The Census Bureau used information on the family income and household composition, along with standard poverty thresholds, to construct a poverty measure. See the Census Bureau website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm for details.

All ages except unrelated HH members below the age of 15.

Household Size

The sum of all people who the householder reports living in the housing unit.

All ages

Household Income

The sum of income for each household member age 15 and older in the household unit.

All ages

Household Adjusted Income

Household income adjusted for sharing within the housing unit based upon the method described in the paper. See Citro and Michael (1995) page 176 for further information.

All ages

Source: Author's adaptation from ACS website http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def.htm


 

Table 2. 2003 ACS Population Estimates, Prevalence Estimates, and Sample Sizes, By Disability Definition

 

No Disability

Participation Restriction

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment/(1)

Participation Restriction Go-OutsideHome/(1)

Activity Limitation

Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

All, Age 5-99 – Population Estimate

225,836,000

37,478,000

21,391,000

10,705,000

7,022,000

13,483,000

23,593,000

10,793,000

All, Age 5-99 – Prevalence Rate

85.8

14.2

9.8

4.9

2.7

5.1

9.0

4.1

All, Age 5-99 Sample Size

948,274

172,435

101,047

49,837

31,875

60,369

109,570

50,470

Ages 5 to 17 Population Estimate

49,674,000

3,348,000

159,000

105,000

421,000

2,675,000

644,000

589,000

Ages 5 to 17 Prevalence Rate

93.7

6.3

2.0

1.3

0.8

5.1

1.2

1.1

Ages 5 to 17 Sample Size

204,162

14,353

726

482

1,703

11,618

2,537

2,386

Ages 18 to 24 Population Estimate

24,194,000

1,667,000

714,000

399,000

187,000

953,000

535,000

356,000

Ages 18 to 24 Prevalence Rate

93.6

6.5

2.8

1.5

0.7

3.7

2.1

1.4

Ages 18 to 24 Sample Size

86,686

6,288

2,705

1,569

698

3,708

1,871

1,229

Ages 25 to 61 Population Estimate

126,649,000

17,146,000

9,854,000

4,227,000

2,925,000

5,745,000

10,819,000

3,944,000

Ages 25 to 61 Prevalence Rate

88.1

11.9

6.9

2.9

2.0

4.0

7.5

2.7

Ages 25 to 61 Sample Size

528,165

74,627

43,322

18,469

12,637

24,800

47,088

16,914

Ages 62 to 64 Population Estimate

4,941,000

1,795,000

1,111,000

404,000

293,000

393,000

1,292,000

455,000

Ages 62 to 64 Prevalence Rate

73.4

26.7

16.5

6.0

4.4

5.8

19.2

6.8

Ages 62 to 64 Sample Size

24,275

8,767

5,489

1,968

1,416

1,946

6,294

2,261

Ages 65 and older Population Estimate

20,376,000

13,520,000

9,551,000

5,569,000

3,194,000

3,714,000

10,301,000

5,447,000

Ages 65 and older Prevalence Rate

60.1

39.9

28.2

16.4

9.4

11.0

30.4

16.1

Ages 65 and older Sample Size

104,986

68,400

48,805

27,349

15,421

18,297

51,780

27,680

Source: Author's calculation from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ).

Notes: (1) The employment and go-outside the home participation restrictions are asked only for those ages 15 and older.

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-1.


 

Table 3. 2003 American Community Survey Estimates of the Distribution of Demographic Characteristics for Persons With and Without Disabilities

Characteristic

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Age – % 5 to 14

18.7

7.5

NA

NA

5.3

16.9

2.2

4.6

Age – % 15 to 24

14.0

5.9

4.1

4.7

3.4

10.0

2.8

4.1

Age – % 25 to 34

16.1

6.5

5.6

5.3

4.4

7.6

4.7

4.8

Age – % 35 to 44

17.5

11.3

11.0

9.7

9.7

11.5

10.4

8.5

Age – % 45 to 54

15.3

15.8

16.2

14.0

15.5

14.5

16.8

13.0

Age – % 55 to 64

9.4

16.9

18.4

14.3

16.3

11.9

19.5

14.5

Age – % 65 to 74

5.5

14.4

16.0

14.8

14.3

9.1

17.7

16.7

Age – % 75 to 84

3.0

14.9

18.8

22.2

18.7

11.6

17.8

21.4

Age – % 85 or older

0.5

6.8

9.8

15.0

12.6

6.9

8.2

12.4

Age – Total 

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Gender – % Male

49.0

47.2

42.9

36.5

41.1

50.0

43.0

51.4

Gender – % Female

51.0

52.8

57.1

63.6

58.9

50.0

57.0

48.6

Gender – Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Race – % Asian

4.5

2.4

2.4

3.3

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.4

Race – % Black

11.7

13.8

14.2

14.1

16.0

15.8

13.7

10.9

Race – % Native American

0.7

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.3

Race – % White

76.5

77.3

77.7

76.5

75.1

74.2

78.1

80.6

Race – % Some Other Race

6.6

5.4

4.7

5.0

5.1

6.5

4.9

4.9

Race –Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Ethnicity% Hispanic

14.0

9.6

8.6

9.4

9.4

10.4

8.9

9.2

Education (25-61) % Less than High School

11.6

25.0

28.6

31.0

28.4

31.2

25.7

24.5

Education (25-61) % High School/GED

28.0

33.6

34.5

33.3

32.5

32.5

33.8

32.9

Education (25-61) % Some College

29.4

28.4

26.7

25.1

27.8

25.9

28.9

27.7

Education (25-61) % Four Year College Graduate or more

31.0

13.0

10.3

10.7

11.3

10.5

11.6

14.9

Education (25-61) Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Source: Author's calculation from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ).

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are in Appendix Table D-2.

 


 


Table 4. 2003 American Community Survey Employment Rate Estimates, Ages 25 to 61

% Employed During…

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction – Employment

Participation Restriction– Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation– Self-Care

Impairment– Mental

Impairment– Physical

Impairment-– Sensory

All Reference Period

79.5

39.3

18.9

17.9

18.3

28.2

33.8

49.9

All Sometime Previous Year

87.1

48.9

28.3

25.8

26.2

37.2

42.8

58.1

All Full-Time Previous Year

59.6

24.5

9.1

9.0

9.4

15.0

20.3

34.5

Men Reference Period

87.1

43.4

20.8

19.4

19.6

30.9

35.6

56.4

Men Sometime Previous Year

94.5

53.7

31.0

27.9

28.3

40.1

45.5

65.0

Men Full-Time Previous Year

71.9

29.6

11.2

11.0

10.7

18.2

23.2

41.2

Women Reference Period

72.2

35.5

17.2

16.9

17.3

25.8

32.3

41.3

Women Sometime Previous Year

80.0

44.5

25.9

24.3

24.5

34.6

40.4

49.0

Women Full-Time Previous Year

47.7

19.6

7.1

7.5

8.3

12.0

17.7

25.6

White Reference Period

80.7

41.4

19.6

18.4

19.1

29.9

35.3

53.0

White Sometime Previous Year

87.8

50.8

29.0

25.9

26.7

38.9

44.2

60.9

White Full-Time Previous Year

60.5

25.8

9.1

8.7

9.8

15.9

21.2

37.1

Black Reference Period

76.9

30.4

14.7

13.9

30.9

21.0

27.9

35.8

Black Sometime Previous Year

86.9

39.9

23.1

21.3

40.2

29.4

36.5

45.0

Black Full-Time Previous Year

59.5

18.3

7.5

7.4

18.5

10.3

16.4

22.9

Native American Reference Period

73.9

32.1

15.8

17.1

15.9

22.9

24.9

40.3

Native American Sometime Previous Year

84.7

42.7

24.9

22.6

21.3

32.6

34.2

51.1

Native American Full-Time Previous Year

53.3

19.4

8.6

8.8

8.3

11.1

15.2

23.2

Asian Reference Period

72.9

42.5

30.7

30.1

25.6

29.3

35.9

49.8

Asian Sometime Previous Year

81.1

55.4

45.0

47.5

42.0

41.4

48.7

59.4

Asian Full-Time Previous Year

53.7

29.2

18.8

18.7

13.4

16.9

24.3

38.5

Hispanic Reference Period

74.1

37.1

18.5

17.6

16.3

26.0

32.8

45.1

Hispanic Sometime Previous Year

82.5

48.1

29.7

27.4

27.4

35.8

43.5

54.3

Hispanic Full-Time Previous Year

55.5

23.5

11.0

11.1

9.2

15.2

20.2

30.3

LT High SchoolReference Period

67.0

25.2

12.2

12.1

10.9

19.3

20.5

30.7

LT High SchoolSometime Previous Year

77.0

34.0

20.0

18.6

17.4

26.8

28.7

38.4

LT High SchoolFull-Time Previous Year

47.7

13.9

5.7

5.7

4.5

9.4

11.0

17.7

High School Reference Period

77.8

37.6

17.5

16.7

16.0

28.3

32.1

49.6

High School Sometime Previous Year

86.1

47.3

26.8

23.9

23.6

37.2

41.1

58.1

High School Full-Time Previous Year

59.6

23.8

8.6

7.9

8.5

15.3

19.4

35.2

More Than High School Reference Period

82.7

49.3

25.4

24.2

25.7

35.8

43.7

61.1

More Than High School Sometime Previous Year

89.6

59.3

36.2

33.8

34.7

46.2

53.1

69.5

More Than High School Full-Time Previous Year

61.9

31.3

12.1

12.8

13.6

19.4

26.9

43.7

Source: Author's calculation from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ).

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-3.


 

Table 5. 2003 American Community Survey Economic Well Being Estimates, Ages 25 to 61

 

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

All % Below Poverty Line

7.7

23.7

29.6

29.7

28.9

30.8

25.0

20.8

All Median Inc.-to-Needs

3.81

2.21

1.77

1.77

1.79

1.73

2.10

2.47

All Median HH Income

$60,000

$34,600

$28,000

$28,600

$28,000

$27,400

$32,100

$38,000

All Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$35,796

$21,304

$17,487

$17,615

$17,667

$17,321

$20,207

$23,415

Men % Below Poverty Line

6.2

20.5

26.4

26.5

26.2

26.4

22.7

16.8

Men Median Inc.-to-Needs

3.96

2.40

1.89

1.87

1.89

1.93

2.17

2.75

Men Median HH Income

$62,000

$36,900

$29,200

$30,000

$29,700

$30,000

$33,400

$41,800

Men Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$37,000

$22,840

$18,200

$18,385

$18,445

$18,879

$21,000

$25,850

Women % Below Poverty Line

9.2

26.7

32.6

32.1

31.1

34.7

27.0

26.1

Women Median Inc.-to-Needs

3.68

2.06

1.66

1.70

1.71

1.57

2.03

2.09

Women Median HH Income

$58,980

$32,140

$26,600

$27,400

$27,000

$25,400

$31,101

$33,000

Women Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$34,790

$20,011

$16,700

$17,130

$16,971

$15,876

$19,658

$20,223

White % Below Poverty Line

6.2

20.5

26.4

26.7

25.6

27.3

21.8

17.2

White Median Income-to-Needs

4.08

2.46

1.96

1.97

2.00

1.94

2.32

2.73

White Median Household Inc.

$63,348

$37,100

$30,000

$30,530

$30,400

$30,000

$35,000

$41,200

White Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$38,000

$23,335

$19,000

$19,163

$19,375

$19,092

$22,000

$25,600

Black % Below Poverty Line

14.5

36.4

41.8

42.0

36.2

43.9

37.1

37.1

Black Median Income-to-Needs

2.85

1.48

1.22

1.21

1.49

1.15

1.45

1.47

Black Median HH Income

$45,000

$23,400

$19,200

$19,800

$23,400

$18,000

$22,740

$22,900

Black Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$27,000

$14,425

$12,445

$12,586

$14,500

$11,778

$14,100

$14,545

Native American % Below Poverty Line

15.3

34.7

40.8

36.7

39.1

39.6

35.8

33.9

Native American Median Inc.-to-Needs

2.64

1.52

1.25

1.29

1.23

1.25

1.38

1.61

Native American Median HH Income

$43,600

$26,000

$20,100

$21,600

$19,910

$22,800

$24,300

$26,800

Native American Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$25,066

$15,000

$12,763

$13,576

$12,516

$13,683

$14,434

$15,210

Asian % Below Poverty Line

8.4

17.7

19.9

16.2

13.2

19.7

19.6

17.3

Asian Median Income-to-Needs

4.10

2.66

2.45

2.59

2.51

2.38

2.61

2.72

Asian Median HH Income

$69,900

$48,600

$44,800

$48,200

$43,400

$43,400

$47,640

$50,000

AsianMedian HH Size Adj. Inc.

$38,919

$26,475

$24,000

$24,884

$24,400

$23,523

$26,362

$28,284

Hispanic % Below Poverty Line

15.7

30.2

34.4

34.2

37.6

39.2

30.9

29.5

Hispanic Median Income-to-Needs

2.29

1.70

1.49

1.48

1.39

1.36

1.64

1.71

Hispanic Median HH Income

$44,660

$31,000

$27,000

$26,800

$25,000

$25,000

$29,500

$31,470

Hispanic Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$23,094

$17,205

$15,486

$15,500

$14,056

$14,142

$16,546

$17,571

Less Than High School % Below Poverty Line

21.0

36.5

40.1

38.5

39.5

40.7

37.9

34.6

Less Than High School Median Inc.-to-Needs

1.99

1.39

1.26

1.29

1.27

1.24

1.31

1.41

Less Than High School Median HH Income

$37,000

$23,400

$21,200

$22,100

$21,700

$21,010

$22,000

$23,800

Less Than High School Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$20,000

$14,000

$12,759

$13,309

$13,048

$12,728

$13,200

$14,284

High School % Below Poverty Line

9.0

22.7

28.2

28.8

27.9

29.0

23.9

18.8

High School Median Inc.-to-Needs

3.16

2.17

1.81

1.82

1.84

1.81

2.08

2.46

High School Median HH Income

$50,900

$33,400

$28,300

$29,000

$28,500

$27,800

$31,500

$38,000

High School Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$29,861

$20,860

$17,718

$17,961

$17,750

$17,748

$20,000

$23,100

More Than High School % Below Poverty Line

4.6

16.8

22.9

23.0

22.2

23.8

17.7

14.3

More Than High School Median Inc.-to-Needs

4.61

3.00

2.35

2.38

2.41

2.35

2.85

3.38

More Than High School Median HH Income

$71,000

$45,000

$35,100

$36,000

$35,600

$35,000

$42,200

$50,000

More Than High School Median HH Size Adj. Inc.

$43,000

$28,572

$22,698

$22,800

$22,769

$22,981

$27,000

$31,624

Source: Author's calculation from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ).

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-4.

 

 

 

 


 

Table 6. 2003 ACS State Level Prevalence Rate Estimates, Ages 25 to 61

State

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Alabama

16.7

10.4

4.6

3.3

5.5

11.5

3.6

Alaska

14.3

6.7

3.1

2.4

5.1

9.3

4.2

Arizona

11.9

7.1

2.9

1.9

3.6

7.0

3.0

Arkansas

17.2

11.1

4.6

3.6

6.0

11.4

4.7

California

10.7

6.0

2.7

1.8

3.8

6.6

2.3

Colorado

9.0

4.4

1.8

1.3

3.0

5.5

2.3

Connecticut

9.2

5.0

2.4

1.5

2.7

5.6

1.9

D. C.

11.8

5.9

2.3

1.5

3.6

7.7

2.3

Delaware

11.5

5.6

2.0

1.5

4.1

7.0

2.6

Florida

11.8

7.0

3.0

2.2

3.9

7.8

2.3

Georgia

12.0

7.1

2.9

2.0

3.8

7.6

2.9

Hawaii

10.3

5.7

2.4

1.4

3.1

6.3

2.2

Idaho

14.7

7.2

2.8

1.8

5.4

8.9

3.8

Illinois

9.2

5.0

2.3

1.7

2.8

5.7

2.1

Indiana

13.3

7.4

3.2

2.3

4.4

8.5

3.6

Iowa

12.2

6.7

2.8

1.8

4.4

7.3

2.9

Kansas

11.2

6.1

2.8

1.9

3.6

6.1

3.5

Kentucky

18.0

11.7

4.8

3.0

6.6

12.5

4.1

Louisiana

15.2

9.4

4.0

2.9

4.9

9.9

3.6

Maine

15.4

9.7

3.9

2.7

5.9

10.0

3.5

Maryland

10.6

5.6

2.8

1.8

3.7

6.4

2.6

Massachusetts

9.7

6.1

2.4

1.5

3.5

5.3

1.7

Michigan

12.4

7.1

3.3

2.5

4.4

7.7

2.6

Minnesota

9.2

4.9

1.9

1.5

3.2

5.6

2.0

Mississippi

19.2

12.2

4.9

4.0

7.1

12.7

4.6

Missouri

12.5

7.3

3.2

2.0

3.9

8.1

2.9

Montana

14.2

7.5

2.7

2.0

4.6

8.5

4.4

Nebraska

12.4

7.0

2.5

1.8

3.8

8.2

3.0

Nevada

10.1

5.3

2.4

1.9

2.5

6.6

2.4

New Hampshire

9.9

5.4

2.5

1.6

3.6

6.1

2.3

New Jersey

8.9

5.1

2.5

1.7

2.8

5.2

2.0

New Mexico

14.5

8.2

2.9

2.6

5.6

9.3

3.0

New York

10.8

6.5

3.1

1.9

3.5

6.9

2.2

North Carolina

14.2

8.5

3.3

2.2

4.5

9.5

3.0

North Dakota

10.9

5.1

2.0

1.2

3.4

6.3

3.1

Ohio

13.1

7.8

3.1

2.1

4.6

8.2

2.8

Oklahoma

15.6

8.2

3.8

3.0

5.2

10.6

4.4

Oregon

13.2

7.7

3.1

2.3

5.2

7.7

2.9

Pennsylvania

12.3

7.4

3.0

1.9

4.1

7.6

2.6

Rhode Island

12.0

6.8

2.9

1.8

4.4

7.1

2.7

South Carolina

14.8

8.8

3.5

2.3

4.4

10.1

3.5

South Dakota

9.5

4.7

1.6

1.2

2.7

5.5

2.8

Tennessee

15.1

8.9

3.9

2.6

5.4

9.9

3.6

Texas

10.9

5.8

2.6

1.9

3.4

6.9

2.9

Utah

9.9

4.1

1.7

1.1

3.2

5.5

2.7

Vermont

13.9

7.8

2.6

2.0

4.8

8.2

3.1

Virginia

11.1

6.4

2.5

1.9

3.5

7.3

2.7

Washington

12.7

6.7

3.0

2.0

4.9

7.3

3.3

West Virginia

21.2

14.0

5.1

3.5

7.3

15.1

5.1

Wisconsin

11.4

6.3

2.5

1.8

4.0

6.9

2.8

Wyoming

12.7

6.1

2.2

1.7

3.9

7.4

3.7

Source: Author's calculation from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ).

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-5.

 


 

Table 7. 2003 ACS State Level Employment Rate Estimates, Ages 25-61

State

No Disability

Disability

Relative Rate

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Alabama

79.5

30.9

38.8%

13.5

13.1

17.3

19.8

28.4

37.5

Alaska

79.2

54.0

68.2%

27.5

21.9

27.9

42.5

49.5

63.3

Arizona

77.8

40.2

51.7%

20.7

20.6

14.6

26.1

31.6

49.5

Arkansas

82.3

35.6

43.3%

15.4

15.5

16.4

21.3

27.8

48.9

California

76.6

37.5

49.0%

19.0

18.1

14.5

26.6

32.5

47.4

Colorado

81.0

50.0

61.8%

24.7

30.0

25.5

39.1

45.0

52.0

Connecticut

80.9

43.4

53.7%

21.0

16.3

13.2

35.5

36.3

60.4

D. C.

82.3

45.1

54.8%

19.1

20.7

24.4

33.5

41.2

58.0

Delaware

78.3

41.0

52.4%

16.8

23.7

37.4

30.6

39.9

46.3

Florida

79.0

39.4

49.9%

19.0

18.3

17.9

28.5

34.8

49.7

Georgia

80.2

37.0

46.1%

14.8

13.9

14.9

28.3

32.3

46.9

Hawaii

80.4

44.2

55.0%

25.2

19.8

19.4

33.1

37.5

54.5

Idaho

81.1

51.8

63.8%

25.0

23.1

26.0

47.7

47.0

59.6

Illinois

78.4

40.7

51.9%

18.1

16.2

18.2

27.5

35.9

54.1

Indiana

80.9

43.5

53.8%

20.0

19.9

21.4

32.3

37.5

53.5

Iowa

84.9

45.9

54.0%

23.4

24.5

20.7

32.6

40.7

60.7

Kansas

83.9

43.7

52.2%

20.2

22.3

11.9

28.1

33.2

57.1

Kentucky

78.4

29.1

37.1%

11.8

11.4

12.3

18.6

24.6

33.7

Louisiana

77.5

34.0

43.9%

14.8

14.5

16.7

23.8

29.6

46.3

Maine

84.2

43.0

51.0%

22.9

14.4

22.0

30.4

37.1

52.7

Maryland

82.5

43.5

52.8%

22.6

27.2

26.9

36.6

38.1

54.8

Massachusetts

81.3

36.9

45.4%

20.6

22.6

18.1

31.2

31.0

49.3

Michigan

78.4

38.0

48.4%

18.1

15.6

17.0

29.0

32.0

48.5

Minnesota

84.3

49.7

58.9%

29.7

28.5

30.0

37.1

43.6

65.9

Mississippi

81.2

33.5

41.3%

13.8

9.8

12.5

22.5

26.9

45.0

Missouri

82.8

40.8

49.3%

19.6

19.5

21.5

29.6

35.8

53.9

Montana

82.7

50.7

61.3%

27.7

24.2

32.2

36.7

40.7

66.6

Nebraska

86.5

48.3

55.8%

28.1

32.7

30.6

42.6

43.2

56.1

Nevada

78.6

44.8

57.1%

19.0

18.3

22.6

39.4

36.8

54.9

N. Hampshire

83.9

46.5

55.4%

20.5

17.9

26.3

38.2

37.7

61.8

New Jersey

79.5

40.4

50.8%

21.9

22.0

21.9

27.9

37.0

47.5

New Mexico

77.4

39.0

50.4%

17.8

14.7

16.7

20.9

32.8

52.7

New York

77.7

37.0

47.7%

19.8

18.8

18.9

27.5

33.2

46.0

N. Carolina

80.9

37.0

45.8%

17.5

15.5

14.8

27.6

32.5

47.3

North Dakota

86.1

51.4

59.6%

26.1

24.3

13.4

34.1

40.5

64.5

Ohio

80.4

38.9

48.4%

19.6

20.1

22.9

28.6

33.3

48.5

Oklahoma

77.4

41.9

54.1%

18.9

17.7

16.5

29.5

33.7

49.7

Oregon

79.8

40.6

50.9%

21.7

20.6

18.1

28.7

36.2

59.6

Pennsylvania

80.1

37.3

46.6%

17.5

17.0

19.1

26.4

31.5

48.6

Rhode Island

83.4

38.1

45.8%

17.0

19.3

19.7

27.7

32.0

45.4

S. Carolina

79.7

35.4

44.4%

16.5

15.5

15.5

22.0

30.6

47.8

South Dakota

85.5

55.7

65.2%

27.8

36.4

31.6

36.7

51.1

69.1

Tennessee

80.6

36.8

45.6%

16.5

11.1

13.2

22.8

31.2

48.1

Texas

77.5

41.0

52.9%

18.1

15.9

17.2

28.2

34.8

49.8

Utah

78.3

50.4

64.3%

23.1

21.8

27.5

38.9

47.5

60.1

Vermont

86.2

48.2

55.9%

26.6

17.4

21.2

38.1

43.1

57.1

Virginia

82.3

40.6

49.3%

19.8

19.8

24.5

30.2

32.7

53.9

Washington

79.0

42.4

53.7%

21.0

18.8

23.4

29.6

35.8

53.2

West Virginia

75.4

27.0

35.8%

8.9

10.2

11.1

14.4

23.2

36.6

Wisconsin

83.4

46.2

55.4%

26.8

22.6

25.1

34.1

41.7

54.1

Wyoming

83.4

54.6

65.5%

28.2

22.2

18.8

41.8

45.3

66.3

Source: Calculations from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample.

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-6.

 


 

Table 8. 2003 ACS State Level Poverty Rate Estimates, Ages 25-61

State

No Disability

Disability

Relative Rate

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Alabama

9.8

30.1

3.1

36.1

29.5

31.1

34.9

30.2

23.5

Alaska

6.4

13.8

2.2

18.3

18.9

18.4

18.1

14.3

13.6

Arizona

10.5

22.8

2.2

28.6

28.5

26.8

28.6

23.6

17.2

Arkansas

9.1

25.8

2.8

31.2

30.0

32.6

31.5

26.5

17.5

California

9.1

21.8

2.4

25.7

25.0

28.3

27.7

22.5

20.1

Colorado

5.5

18.3

3.3

24.8

22.1

27.5

23.3

20.6

13.2

Connecticut

4.9

19.1

3.9

27.1

33.4

26.2

22.8

22.7

13.3

D. C.

4.7

17.6

3.7

23.5

18.6

19.5

21.6

17.4

17.4

Delaware

12.7

30.7

2.4

33.6

37.1

25.4

36.8

33.6

28.0

Florida

8.7

22.6

2.6

29.2

28.6

30.7

29.5

23.7

21.1

Georgia

7.6

25.9

3.4

32.0

32.7

30.0

31.4

26.1

22.2

Hawaii

7.0

21.5

3.1

28.8

27.6

30.4

31.3

26.0

21.1

Idaho

8.6

20.9

2.4

27.7

22.3

20.3

26.9

19.6

19.1

Illinois

6.8

22.9

3.4

29.4

29.6

27.8

33.0

24.2

19.9

Indiana

5.8

20.8

3.6

27.6

26.8

21.8

30.3

21.6

18.4

Iowa

5.7

20.9

3.7

28.7

33.0

25.2

29.3

21.7

16.4

Kansas

5.4

20.8

3.8

30.6

29.2

37.6

30.7

23.4

17.6

Kentucky

10.2

30.6

3.0

37.1

34.2

30.6

37.0

31.8

31.2

Louisiana

11.9

31.3

2.6

39.5

44.3

37.9

38.7

31.3

27.2

Maine

5.7

21.5

3.8

27.9

28.5

22.6

29.0

22.4

18.6

Maryland

4.7

18.6

4.0

24.2

21.8

22.1

23.3

19.8

15.7

Massachusetts

5.4

23.8

4.4

28.9

32.1

30.0

34.2

24.7

23.4

Michigan

6.4

22.9

3.6

29.5

30.1

27.8

29.7

24.2

21.2

Minnesota

4.0

18.8

4.7

26.2

22.6

20.6

22.5

20.2

7.8

Mississippi

10.9

31.3

2.9

36.3

38.3

39.1

39.1

33.6

28.2

Missouri

6.0

22.6

3.7

27.0

30.9

28.5

30.3

24.3

15.2

Montana

8.8

23.2

2.6

28.4

22.0

25.6

32.3

24.5

20.5

Nebraska

5.4

26.1

4.9

33.5

30.3

35.8

35.8

28.3

26.3

Nevada

7.5

21.8

2.9

28.3

25.4

30.7

24.0

21.8

25.3

N. Hampshire

4.5

17.3

3.8

23.4

24.5

14.0

23.7

18.4

16.5

New Jersey

5.3

19.0

3.6

23.8

22.8

25.3

26.5

19.7

21.0

New Mexico

11.3

31.3

2.8

40.0

44.7

50.7

41.0

32.6

30.1

New York

8.6

26.5

3.1

31.7

32.3

29.8

34.3

27.6

22.1

N. Carolina

7.9

24.3

3.1

31.5

30.0

28.1

28.5

26.2

22.7

North Dakota

6.6

21.9

3.3

30.5

27.1

23.7

25.2

27.1

11.4

Ohio

6.8

24.1

3.6

30.1

32.6

29.0

33.2

26.1

20.9

Oklahoma

9.6

25.5

2.6

30.4

30.9

28.0

30.1

27.0

26.9

Oregon

8.9

23.2

2.6

28.7

31.1

28.2

33.3

22.4

14.5

Pennsylvania

6.2

24.1

3.9

28.9

27.8

25.8

30.8

24.9

20.9

Rhode Island

5.5

26.0

4.8

31.0

27.6

30.6

33.9

27.9

28.8

S. Carolina

8.2

26.2

3.2

28.7

27.2

22.8

33.3

28.2

19.7

South Dakota

6.4

19.2

3.0

24.1

18.2

17.3

26.8

19.7

16.7

Tennessee

7.7

26.1

3.4

32.5

31.2

35.7

34.5

28.5

20.2

Texas

10.6

24.5

2.3

30.1

32.7

32.3

32.3

26.5

24.5

Utah

7.3

15.2

2.1

22.3

23.0

22.9

18.2

16.7

15.2

Vermont

4.9

22.3

4.5

29.4

33.0

28.1

23.1

23.6

13.4

Virginia

4.6

20.3

4.5

25.8

23.0

24.5

25.0

22.3

14.6

Washington

7.3

22.5

3.1

31.3

35.8

29.7

32.1

24.2

16.1

West Virginia

12.1

28.4

2.4

34.4

35.7

31.8

38.9

28.8

24.8

Wisconsin

5.9

20.5

3.5

26.2

31.9

21.5

29.6

21.6

23.6

Wyoming

6.2

17.6

2.8

25.3

23.8

27.7

25.5

19.0

16.1

Source: Calculations from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample.

Standard errors for estimates in this Table are located in Appendix Table D-7.

 


 

 

Table 9. 2003 ACS State Level Household Income Estimates, Ages 25-61

State

No Disability

Disability

Relative Rate

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction Go-Outside Home

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Alabama

$51,000

$25,700

50.4%

$21,880

$24,700

$22,600

$21,900

$25,500

$28,500

Alaska

$68,000

$43,000

63.2%

$35,060

$35,900

$36,320

$42,150

$38,100

$50,400

Arizona

$55,200

$35,000

63.4%

$30,900

$36,700

$33,900

$34,100

$34,000

$43,800

Arkansas

$48,500

$27,300

56.3%

$23,400

$21,370

$24,200

$23,000

$25,800

$30,800

California

$65,000

$40,500

62.3%

$35,200

$34,200

$32,500

$32,500

$39,540

$42,600

Colorado

$65,000

$43,100

66.3%

$31,204

$35,300

$27,700

$37,200

$39,000

$45,500

Connecticut

$76,000

$46,110

60.7%

$34,000

$31,500

$32,600

$34,500

$41,000

$53,000

D. C.

$69,100

$42,000

60.8%

$38,100

$38,720

$40,280

$39,900

$40,000

$46,200

Delaware

$60,500

$29,200

48.3%

$25,300

$29,210

$39,000

$22,100

$28,300

$29,400

Florida

$55,050

$35,000

63.6%

$30,000

$31,300

$29,000

$27,800

$32,950

$37,300

Georgia

$58,000

$31,600

54.5%

$25,300

$25,300

$26,220

$24,000

$31,000

$32,500

Hawaii

$70,000

$50,000

71.4%

$42,700

$49,340

$53,800

$36,100

$45,000

$63,660

Idaho

$53,000

$33,900

64.0%

$29,900

$37,000

$35,350

$28,000

$32,600

$40,000

Illinois

$64,500

$37,000

57.4%

$30,000

$31,900

$30,810

$27,600

$34,200

$42,000

Indiana

$57,500

$35,600

61.9%

$30,000

$30,000

$31,600

$26,600

$33,000

$37,700

Iowa

$56,000

$32,210

57.5%

$25,300

$24,800

$22,500

$24,100

$30,020

$37,200

Kansas

$56,500

$32,800

58.1%

$25,400

$28,200

$25,320

$25,000

$30,000

$35,004

Kentucky

$50,000

$25,800

51.6%

$21,000

$21,700

$23,000

$20,960

$24,030

$24,000

Louisiana

$51,200

$25,400

49.6%

$19,990

$17,000

$20,700

$19,300

$24,960

$30,000

Maine

$54,800

$33,300

60.8%

$27,900

$24,700

$31,700

$24,000

$31,800

$39,600

Maryland

$77,000

$45,000

58.4%

$36,560

$40,000

$37,200

$37,000

$42,000

$46,660

Massachusetts

$77,000

$40,100

52.1%

$31,400

$32,000

$41,000

$32,000

$41,000

$43,300

Michigan

$62,500

$35,230

56.4%

$28,500

$29,680

$29,169

$30,560

$32,700

$42,000

Minnesota

$67,000

$43,800

65.4%

$32,650

$36,000

$40,300

$35,500

$39,900

$55,000

Mississippi

$47,000

$26,200

55.7%

$21,700

$20,840

$19,600

$21,200

$25,000

$27,100

Missouri

$57,700

$33,600

58.2%

$29,200

$28,850

$27,000

$28,900

$31,200

$38,500

Montana

$48,100

$28,800

59.9%

$26,060

$26,060

$24,000

$22,700

$27,000

$36,000

Nebraska

$56,800

$34,000

59.9%

$25,700

$30,100

$28,400

$30,000

$29,200

$37,100

Nevada

$58,300

$40,900

70.2%

$30,000

$39,900

$38,000

$30,200

$39,900

$43,000

N. Hampshire

$70,800

$45,800

64.7%

$35,700

$30,500

$40,000

$32,700

$40,100

$52,000

New Jersey

$80,000

$45,200

56.5%

$38,700

$39,000

$33,500

$38,300

$45,000

$44,800

New Mexico

$48,000

$29,400

61.3%

$21,700

$21,100

$20,400

$20,704

$26,500

$33,000

New York

$65,000

$35,000

53.8%

$29,100

$30,000

$33,550

$25,670

$32,000

$42,500

N. Carolina

$52,000

$30,800

59.2%

$24,300

$24,100

$25,000

$27,100

$29,700

$31,800

North Dakota

$53,100

$33,140

62.4%

$22,600

$27,000

$29,200

$25,000

$30,500

$40,800

Ohio

$59,000

$32,000

54.2%

$26,000

$25,500

$26,500

$24,000

$30,000

$38,000

Oklahoma

$48,000

$29,000

60.4%

$24,600

$24,900

$23,600

$23,600

$26,000

$26,000

Oregon

$55,000

$34,200

62.2%

$28,200

$25,200

$27,000

$24,800

$32,000

$38,800

Pennsylvania

$60,000

$32,700

54.5%

$28,000

$29,300

$30,000

$26,120

$31,600

$37,520

Rhode Island

$68,000

$35,000

51.5%

$28,570

$38,600

$34,800

$25,000

$33,000

$36,600

S. Carolina

$53,000

$30,100

56.8%

$25,900

$26,000

$25,100

$25,800

$28,000

$37,020

South Dakota

$51,700

$37,300

72.1%

$33,500

$33,500

$36,270

$24,200

$36,600

$42,000

Tennessee

$54,000

$30,000

55.6%

$24,000

$24,700

$24,400

$22,800

$28,400

$33,140

Texas

$54,000

$32,000

59.3%

$24,800

$23,400

$22,500

$23,800

$29,800

$32,700

Utah

$59,460

$45,120

75.9%

$33,500

$34,700

$36,800

$44,430

$44,000

$49,200

Vermont

$59,000

$31,900

54.1%

$26,090

$23,000

$24,000

$31,360

$30,300

$40,500

Virginia

$67,600

$37,600

55.6%

$29,000

$30,300

$32,000

$29,500

$33,100

$43,000

Washington

$62,000

$41,100

66.3%

$31,400

$28,840

$35,000

$31,000

$38,700

$47,400

West Virginia

$47,000

$27,500

58.5%

$22,310

$21,800

$23,400

$21,400

$26,500

$30,300

Wisconsin

$60,000

$37,400

62.3%

$29,050

$25,000

$28,400

$27,800

$34,900

$39,300

Wyoming

$57,100

$41,000

71.8%

$31,400

$30,760

$29,500

$30,760

$42,000

$43,500

Source: Calculations from 2003 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample.




 

Table 10. American Community Survey Time Trend Estimates for Prevalence Rates, Employment Rates and Poverty Rates for Persons Ages 25-61, by Disability

Year

No Disability

Impairment and/or Activity Limitation Disability

Activity Limitation--Self-Care Disability

Impairment--Mental Disability

Impairment--Physical Disability

Impairment--Sensory Disability

Prevalence Rate – 2000

89.2

10.8

1.9

3.9

7.3

2.9

Prevalence Rate – 2001

89.4

10.6

1.9

3.8

7.3

2.8

Prevalence Rate – 2002

89.2

10.8

1.9

4.0

7.5

2.8

Prevalence Rate – 2003

89.3

10.7

2.0

4.0

7.5

2.7

Employment Rate – 2000

80.7

45.2

24.9

33.5

39.1

55.7

Employment Rate – 2001

80.5

42.5

20.8

30.1

36.0

51.6

Employment Rate – 2002

79.6

41.0

19.5

28.6

34.8

51.6

Employment Rate – 2003

79.5

40.0

18.3

28.2

33.8

49.9

Poverty Rate – 2000

7.4

21.9

26.1

27.8

23.5

18.6

Poverty Rate – 2001

7.2

22.1

27.3

28.8

23.7

19.2

Poverty Rate – 2002

7.7

22.4

26.0

29.4

23.6

19.4

Poverty Rate – 2003

7.8

23.9

29.2

31.1

25.3

21.0

Source: Author's calculations from ACS Public Use Microdata Samples from 2000 through 2003.

Note: Standard errors for estimates are shown in Table D-6.


 

Table 11. Estimated Population of Persons with Disabilities, by Data Source

 

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restricti`on IADL

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Ages 18 to 24American Community Survey, 2003

24,194,401

1,667,355

714,229

399,423

187,904

953,448

535,666

356,820

Ages 18 to 24Census 2000

24,790,000

1,442,000

NA

NA

207,000

883,000

456,000

326,000

Ages 18 to 24Current Population Survey, March 2004

26,803,529

816,662

816,662

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 24National Health Interview Survey,2002

25,225,000

2,126,000

927,000

228,000

147,000

786,000

859,000

78,000

Ages 18 to 24Panel Study on Income Dynamics, 2001 / (1)

9,123,000

690,000

690,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 24Survey of Income and Program Participation,2002

24,820,000

2,426,337

1,209,000

366,000

146,000

1,076,000

982,000

533,000

Ages 25 to 61American Community Survey, 2003

126,649,510

17,146,845

9,854,223

4,227,427

2,925,715

5,745,569

10,819,521

3,944,388

Ages 25 to 61Census 2000

124,493,000

14,005,000

NA

NA

2,627,000

5,218,000

9,447,000

3,346,000

Ages 25 to 61Current Population Survey, March 2004

132,649,606

12,102,093

12,102,093

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 25 to 61National Health Interview Survey,2002

115,934,000

23,192,000

13,725,000

3,169,000

1,350,000

4,627,000

14,545,000

2,730,000

Ages 25 to 61Panel Study on Income Dynamics, 2001

117,273,000

20,054,000

20,054,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 25 to 61Survey of Income and Program Participation,2002

115,900,000

26,620,000

14,420,000

4,931,000

3,362,000

4,394,000

18,790,000

6,490,000

Ages 62 to 64American Community Survey, 2003

4,941,802

1,795,533

1,111,762

404,875

293,507

393,782

1,292,381

455,364

Ages 62 to 64Census 2000

4,806,000

1,413,000

NA

NA

257,000

348,000

1,134,000

373,000

Ages 62 to 64Current Population Survey, March 2004

5,482,126

1,278,528

1,278,528

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 62 to 64National Health Interview Survey,2002

4,239,000

2,045,000

1,281,000

300,000

127,000

144,000

1,466,000

310,000

Ages 62 to 64Panel Study on Income Dynamics, 2001

3,911,000

1,684,000

1,684,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 62 to 64Survey of Income and Program Participation,2002

3,958,000

2,581,000

1,496,000

567,000

376,000

252,000

2,165,000

672,000

Ages 18 to 64 American Community Survey, 2003

155,785,713

20,609,733

11,680,214

5,031,725

3,407,126

7,092,799

12,647,568

4,756,572

Ages 18 to 64 Census 2000

154,091,000

16,861,000

NA

NA

3,093,000

6,450,000

11,039,000

4,046,000

Ages 18 to 64 Current Population Survey, March 2004

164,935,261

14,197,283

14,197,283

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 64 National Health Interview Survey,2002

145,399,000

27,363,000

15,934,000

3,697,000

1,626,000

5,558,000

16,871,000

3,119,000

Ages 18 to 64 Panel Study on Income Dynamics, 2001

130,309,000

22,429,000

22,429,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 64 Survey of Income and Program Participation,2002

144,678,000

31,627,000

17,126,000

5,864,000

3,885,000

5,723,000

21,938,000

7,695,000

Source: Authors' Calculations from various data sources.

Note: (1) The PSID only asks this question for the Head and Wife of the Household. Children of the Head and Wife are not asked this question, and the PSID assigns missing values to children for this question. As a result, the population with and without a work limitation is small relative to the other national surveys.

Note: (2) The March 2004 Current Population Supplement collects 2003 calendar year information on Poverty, Median Household Income, and Household Size Adjusted Income. Population and prevalence estimates are collected in March 2004.

Note: Standard errors for ACS estimates are in Appendix Table D-1. Standard errors for other datasets available in respective user guides.

 

 


 

Table 12. Estimated Disability Prevalence Rates, By Data Source

 

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction IADL

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Ages 18 to 24 ACS , 2003

6.5

2.8

1.5

0.7

3.7

2.1

1.4

Ages 18 to 24 Census 2000

5.5

NA

NA

0.8

3.4

1.7

1.2

Ages 18 to 24 CPS, March 2004

3.0

3.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 24 NHIS, 2002

7.8

3.4

0.8

0.5

2.9

3.1

0.3

Ages 18 to 24 PSID, 2001

7.0

7.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 24 SIPP, 2002

8.9

4.4

1.3

0.5

4.0

3.6

2.0

Ages 25 to 61ACS , 2003

11.9

6.9

2.9

2.0

4.0

7.5

2.7

Ages 25 to 61Census 2000

10.1

NA

NA

1.9

3.8

6.8

2.4

Ages 25 to 61CPS, March 2004

8.4

8.4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 25 to 61NHIS, 2002

16.7

9.9

2.3

1.0

3.3

10.5

2.0

Ages 25 to 61PSID, 2001

14.6

14.6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 25 to 61SIPP, 2002

18.7

10.1

3.5

2.4

3.1

13.2

4.6

Ages 62 to 64 ACS , 2003

26.7

16.5

6.0

4.4

5.8

19.2

6.8

Ages 62 to 64 Census 2000

22.7

NA

NA

4.1

5.6

18.2

6.0

Ages 62 to 64 CPS, March 2004

18.9

18.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 62 to 64 NHIS, 2002

32.5

20.4

4.8

2.0

2.3

23.3

4.9

Ages 62 to 64 PSID, 2001

30.1

30.1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 62 to 64 SIPP, 2002

39.5

22.9

8.7

5.8

3.9

33.1

10.3

Ages 18 to 64ACS , 2003

11.7

6.6

2.9

1.9

4.0

7.2

2.7

Ages 18 to 64Census 2000

9.9

NA

NA

1.8

3.8

6.5

2.4

Ages 18 to 64CPS, March 2004

7.9

7.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 64NHIS, 2002

15.8

9.2

2.1

0.9

3.2

9.8

1.8

Ages 18 to 64PSID, 2001

14.7

14.7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ages 18 to 64SIPP, 2002

17.9

9.7

3.3

2.2

3.2

12.4

4.4

Source: Authors' calculations from various data sources.

Note: (1) The PSID only asks this question for the Head and Wife of the Household. Children of the Head and Wife are not asked this question, and the PSID assigns missing values to children for this question. As a result, the population with and without a work limitation is small relative to the other national surveys.

Note: (2) The March 2004 Current Population Supplement collects 2003 calendar year information on Poverty, Median Household Income, and Household Size Adjusted Income. Population and prevalence estimates are collected in March 2004.

Note: Standard errors for ACS estimates are in Appendix Table D-1. Standard errors for other datasets available in respective user guides.


 

Table 13. Estimated Employment Rates for Persons With Disabilities Ages 25 to 61, By Data Source

 

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction IADL

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 ACS , 2003

79.5

39.3

18.9

17.9

18.3

28.2

33.8

49.9

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 Census 2000

78.8

41.8

NA

NA

21.7

30.2

35.6

52.1

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 CPS, March 2004

81.4

19.6

19.6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 NHIS, 2002

83.3

47.3

29.8

18.3

14.1

37.1

43.8

58.6

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 PSID, 2001

83.8

53.2

53.2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Reference Period, Ages 25 to 61 SIPP, 2002

82.4

48.9

27.7

20.3

22.8

37.0

46.4

53.5

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 ACS , 2003

87.1

48.9

28.3

25.8

26.2

37.2

42.8

58.1

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 Census 2000

86.3

51.9

NA

NA

31.9

40.4

45.4

61.1

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 CPS, March 2004

86.2

27.9

27.9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 NHIS, 2002

88.3

57.9

42.0

25.7

19.9

51.8

53.8

66.6

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 PSID, 2001

91.9

67.8

67.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Some Attachment, Ages 25 to 61 SIPP, 2002

90.6

61.1

41.0

34.1

38.8

46.3

59.0

63.7

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61ACS , 2003

59.6

24.5

9.1

9.0

9.4

15.0

20.3

34.5

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61Census 2000

58.8

27.1

NA

NA

13.1

16.7

22.6

37.4

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61CPS, March 2004

65.3

9.4

9.4

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61NHIS, 2002

62.8

29.8

16.3

9.3

6.2

21.3

27.2

43.4

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61PSID, 2001

70.5

45.1

45.1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Full-Year Full-Time, Ages 25 to 61SIPP, 2002

58.1

31.2

15.3

12.0

15.0

20.3

29.6

35.6

Source: Authors' calculations from various data sources.

Note: (1) The PSID only asks this question for the Head and Wife of the Household. Children of the Head and Wife are not asked this question, and the PSID assigns missing values to children for this question. As a result, the population with and without a work limitation is small relative to the other national surveys.

Note: (2) The March 2004 Current Population Supplement collects 2003 calendar year information on Poverty, Median Household Income, and Household Size Adjusted Income. Population and prevalence estimates are collected in March 2004.

Note: Standard errors for ACS estimates are in Appendix Table D-3. Standard errors for other datasets available in respective user guides.


 

Table 14. Economic Well Being Estimates for Persons with Disabilities Ages 25 to 61, By Data Source

 

No Disability

Disability

Participation Restriction Employment

Participation Restriction IADL

Activity Limitation Self-Care

Impairment Mental

Impairment Physical

Impairment Sensory

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 ACS , 2003

7.7

23.7

29.6

29.7

28.9

30.8

25.0

20.8

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 Census 2000

7.9

23.2

NA

NA

30.0

30.6

24.2

20.1

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 CPS, March 2004

8.0

28.8

28.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 NHIS, 2002

7.5

21.2

26.5

32.3

30.1

29.8

22.1

20.7

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 PSID, 2001

4.6

11.8

11.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Poverty Rates, Ages 25 to 61 SIPP, 2002

6.5

18.8

26.0

26.3

25.1

24.9

19.1

17.6

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 ACS , 2003

$60,000

$34,600

$28,000

$28,600

$28,000

$27,400

$32,100

$38,000

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 Census 2000

$56,860

$33,600

NA

NA

$27,200

$26,170

$32,000

$37,400

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 CPS, March 2004

$61,999

$27,955

$27,955

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 NHIS, 2002

$55,000 - $64,000

$25,000 - $34,999

$25,000 - $34,999

$20,000 - $24,999

$20,000 - $24,999

$20,000 - $24,999

$25,000 - $34,999

$35,000 - $44,999

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 PSID, 2001

$62,000

$42,000

$42,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Median Household Income, Ages 25 to 61 SIPP, 2002

$53,313

$33,895

$25,664

$24,989

$26,735

$26,218

$33,490

$33,776

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61ACS , 2003

$35,796

$21,304

$17,487

$17,615

$17,667

$17,321

$20,207

$23,415

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61Census 2000

$33,234

$20,412

NA

NA

$16,330

$16,000

$19,676

$22,617

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61CPS, March 2004

$36,770

$17,967

$17,967

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61NHIS, 2002

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61PSID, 2002

$38,891

$28,000

$28,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Median Adjusted Household Income, Ages 25 to 61SIPP, 2002

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Source: Authors' calculations from various data sources.

Note: (1) The PSID only asks this question for the Head and Wife of the Household. Children of the Head and Wife are not asked this question, and the PSID assigns missing values to children for this question.

Note: (2) The March 2004 Current Population Supplement collects 2003 calendar year information on Poverty, Median Household Income, and Household Size Adjusted Income. Population and prevalence estimates are collected in March 2004.

Note: Standard errors for ACS estimates are in Appendix Table D-4. Standard errors for other datasets available in respective user guides.

 


Appendix A. Sample Design and Computation of Standard Errors

 

The population estimates reported in the paper are drawn from a sample and, as in any sample, are subject to both sampling error and non-sampling error. Standard errors and confidence intervals are used to describe the magnitude of sampling error and some forms of non-sampling error. The formulas used to compute standard errors and confidence intervals must take into account the sample design.

The purpose of the technical appendix is to provide a brief description of the ACS sample design as well as the ACS PUMS sample design. It will also provide the formulas used to compute standard errors that account for the ACS and ACS PUMS sample design. Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals. The Census Bureau uses 90% confidence intervals in their tables. Confidence intervals provide a more intuitive description of the accuracy of the estimates.

Sample Design

ACS . The 2003 ACS sample is based upon a two-stage stratified annual sample designed to identify approximately 810,000 housing units. The first stage of sampling involves the following.

 

·        Dividing the United States into primary sampling units (PSUs) that are made up of a metropolitan area, a large county or a group of smaller counties. All PSUs fall within the boundary of a State.

 

·        PSUs are then grouped into strata based upon information drawn from other sources. These strata are constructed to be as homogeneous as possible with respect to social and economic characteristics considered to be important.

 

·        A pair of PSUs were selected from each stratum.

 

·        The probability of selection for each PSU in the stratum is proportional to its estimated 1996 population.

 

 

The second stage of sampling involves the selection of housing units within each PSU. Housing units were systematically drawn from the Master Address File (MAF). Persons living in Group Quarters were not included in the sample. Details of the 2002 ACS sample may be found in the document “Accuracy of the Data (2002)” at the following website: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Accuracy/Accuracy1. htm.

Appendix Table A-1 shows the development of the ACS sample for each year. Initially, 890,698 addresses were selected to be potential sample members in 2000, 858,058 addresses were selected to be potential sample members in 2001 and 742,409 addresses were selected to be sample members in 2002. The third column shows the number of addresses actually interviewed. Some of the initial addresses were commercial or non-existent and were not interviewed. Others were non-respondents. The response rate in the ACS is high, between 95%-97% between 2000-2002.

ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS ). The ACS PUMS file consists of a sample drawn from the ACS sample. The sample is selected as follows.

 

·        ACS housing units were classified into three categories: Vacant, Occupied mail/CATI, occupied CAPI.

 

·        Sampling rates were determined separately for each group using the size of ACS housing unit weights compared to ACS housing unit weights in the same State.

 

·        To assure confidentiality, for each State the sampling rates within the three categories were selected to differ based upon categories derived from the size of the household weight.

 

·        Within each State-category-weight cell, the vacant category households were then sorted by reason for vacancy, census tract and weight. The occupied housing units were sorted by tenure of householder, race of householder, census tract and weight.

 

After stratification and sorting, the census designed a systematic method of selecting household units. Household level weights and person level weights were then constructed in the PUMS to allow a user to create population estimates. It is important to note that the PUMS sampling method is different for the 2000 PUMS . For Details of the ACS PUMS design, see “PUMS Accuracy of the Data (2002)” at the following web address http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/2002/AccuracyPUM S.pdf.

To further assure the privacy of individual and household information, the U. S. Census Bureau applies a “confidentiality edit.” The confidentiality edit involved introducing a small degree of uncertainty into the estimates of ACS characteristics. It involves matching person records based upon a set of key characteristics and swapping their data. The method used maintains the quality and usefulness of the data.

Sampling and Non-Sampling Error

Both sampling error and non-sampling errors introduce some degree of uncertainty into estimates. Sampling error occurs when population characteristics are estimated based upon a sample and are not based upon the entire population. Because many samples may be drawn from a population, and each sample can produce a different estimate, there is always some degree of uncertainty when samples are used to estimate characteristics of a population. The variability of estimates drawn from samples, sometimes referred to as uncertainty, is described by standard errors. Standard errors are used to construct confidence intervals, which describe the likelihood that a particular estimate falls within a certain range of estimates.

Non-sampling error results from other forms of error and includes errors keying in data, errors editing the data, misinterpretation of questions by respondents, non-random non-response to the survey or survey questions, and other factors. To the degree that the error occurs at random, additional variability will arise in the estimates and the standard errors will describe the variability due to this non-sampling error. However, non-sampling errors may occur in a systematic manner (i.e., non-random errors). Systematic errors that arise in the data collection process are not described by standard errors. Thus, it is important to assess the role of systematic non-sampling errors tha