Executive Summary: 2000 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities
- Overview
- Employment
- Income
- Education
- Health Care
- Transportation
- Entertainment and Socializing
- Political Participation/Voter Registration
- Life Satisfaction and Optimism for the Future
Overview
The 2000 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities, a survey of 997 adults with disabilities and 953 adults without disabilities conducted in May and June 2000, found that while overall people with disabilities lag somewhat or very far behind people without disabilities on 10 key measures of quality of life, the past decade has seen notable improvements for people with disabilities. These gaps provide a benchmark for measuring progress in the next century.
Large gaps exist between people with and without disabilities with regard to: employment, education, household income, access to transportation, health care, entertainment/going out, frequency of socializing, attendance at religious services, political participation/voter registration, and life satisfaction.1
However, it is quite misleading to think of people with disabilities as a homogenous group because the nature of disabilities vary in type and severity. People with slight or moderate disabilities have dramatically different needs than people with somewhat or very severe disabilities, and the gaps are even more striking when comparing people with severe disabilities to the general population. People with slight or moderate disabilities are less likely than the general population to fare well on all of the 10 quality of life indicators, but they still fare significantly better than people with somewhat or very severe disabilities do.
It is also important to note that while significant gaps still exist between people with and without disabilities, certain social and economic indicators demonstrate improvement for people with disabilities. Most notably, over the past fourteen years since Harris and N.O.D. have been conducting this research, education has shown signs of improvement for all people with disabilities, and employment has shown signs of improvement for those people with disabilities who say they are able to work. These improvements are most likely a result of many things including: the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a robust economy, and growth in technology.
Employment
Although employment has improved somewhat over the past fourteen years for people who say they are able to work, employment is still the area with the widest gulf between all people with disabilities and the rest of the population. Only three in ten working-age (18-64) people with disabilities are employed full or part-time, compared to eight in ten working-age people without disabilities (32% versus 81%). The presence of a disability seems to prevent a clear majority of unemployed people with disabilities from participating in the work force. Two out of three unemployed people with disabilities would prefer to be working.
As mentioned, the employment picture is somewhat blurred by the presence of a significant number of people with disabilities who say they are unable to work due to their disabilities. Over the past fourteen years, the disability population has become more severely disabled, and in turn, the population who say they are unable to work due to their disabilities has grown from 29% to 43%. However, among those who say they are able to work despite their disability or health problem, there has been a noteworthy improvement over the past fourteen years. Fully 56% of people with disabilities who say they are able to work are working today, compared to 46% in 1986. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is undoubtedly responsible for at least part of this progress.
Furthermore, the employment picture for 18-29 year olds indicates even more promise. Among this cohort, 57% of those with disabilities who are able to work are working, compared to 72% of their non-disabled counterparts - a gap of only 15%.2
Income
It is not surprising, given the lower rate of employment for people with disabilities, that a significant income gap exists between people with and without disabilities. People with disabilities are much more likely than people without disabilities to live in poverty3 with very low household incomes of $15,000 or less (29% versus 10%). Conversely, people with disabilities are much less likely than people without disabilities to live in households that earn more than $50,000 annually (16% versus 39%).
While the survey data peg the income gap as 19% between people with and without disabilities, by contrast, among people aged 18 to 29, the gap is only 9 percentage points (30% versus 21%).4
Education
With regard to education, the pattern is the same. People with disabilities lag far behind their non-disabled counterparts in getting a basic education, with more than one out of five failing to complete high school, compared to less than one out of ten people without disabilities (22% versus 9%). The gap is only slightly less when looking at higher education - slightly more than one out of ten people with disabilities have graduated from college, compared to slightly more than two out of ten of their non-disabled counterparts (12% versus 23%).
This education gap may shed some light on the discrepancies mentioned earlier with regard to employment and income. Since education, employment, and income are inextricably linked together, it is not surprising that people with disabilities who are more likely to lack a basic education are less likely to be employed and less likely to have high incomes.
It is important to note, however, that over the past fourteen years, there has been marked progress in the area of education. In fact, almost 8 out of 10 people with disabilities (77%) have graduated from high school today, compared to 6 out of 10 (61%) in 1986.
Health Care
The income, education and employment gaps also provide some explanation for the gaps in other quality of life indicators. Being employed and having discretionary income often free people from having to worry about an issue like health care, since both enable people to receive necessary and satisfactory medical coverage. It is not unexpected, therefore, since people with disabilities have lower household incomes and are less likely to be employed than people without disabilities, that people with disabilities are more than twice as likely to postpone or put off needed health care because they can not afford it (28% versus 12%).
Transportation
Similarly, having adequate transportation to get to work or school, access entertainment, and socialize with friends and family often depends on having sufficient discretionary funds. It is not surprising, therefore, that people with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to consider inadequate transportation to be a problem (30% versus 10%).
Entertainment and Socializing
Moreover, having discretionary income often enables people to enjoy themselves and take advantage of leisure activities like restaurants, movies, and sporting events. The income gap, therefore, may help to explain the differences between people with and without disabilities in most areas of entertainment.
People with disabilities are less likely to go to restaurants at least once per week than people without disabilities (40% versus 59%). Similarly, people with disabilities are less likely to socialize with friends, family and neighbors at least once per week (70%) and attend religious services at least once per month (47%) than their non-disabled counterparts (85% socializing; 65% religion). They are also less likely to go to supermarkets, stores and malls, movies, theater, live music performances, sporting events, and events related to their hobbies such as dancing, art shows, or events for collectors.
Even when comparing people with and without disabilities at similar income levels, significant gaps still exist between the two populations, implying that other factors such as lack of accessibility, negative public attitudes, or discomfort may be inhibiting people with disabilities from participating in these leisure activities.
Since people with disabilities are much older than their non-disabled counterparts, reason also suggests that age might have an impact on the findings. However, when comparing people of similar age cohorts (aside from those 18-29), people with disabilities are still significantly less likely to participate in leisure activities such as going shopping, seeing movies, and attending sports events. This finding indicates that the presence of a disability is still a factor in impeding access to entertainment.
However, for those 18-29, the outlook for entertainment and socializing is more encouraging. People with disabilities are almost as likely as their non-disabled counterparts to socialize regularly with close friends, relatives, and neighbors (89% versus 90%), and to go out to restaurants at least once per week (59% versus 61%).5
Political Participation/Voter Registration
In a presidential election year, one of the most important indicators is the voter registration figures for people with and without disabilities. Since appropriate Census data is only available after presidential elections, the year 2000 percentages used in this report reflect the 1996 election. In that year, approximately 6 out of 10 of people with disabilities (62%) were registered to vote, compared to almost 8 out of 10 people without disabilities (78%) - a gap of 16%, suggesting that the people with disabilities have not been engaged in the political process at the same rate as people without disabilities. However, it will be important to look at this year's figures when they become available in order to explore any valuable trends.
Life Satisfaction and Optimism for the Future
The keystone of the gaps analysis is that all 10 of the quality of life indicators are interconnected. It seems likely that as one indicator improves, others will follow, and conversely, as one declines, others will also decline. All the gaps taken together, therefore, can arguably be used to explain another sizeable and important gap - the gap in life satisfaction. This gap illustrates another clear difference between people with and without disabilities in that half as many people with disabilities say that they are very satisfied with their life in general, when compared to people without disabilities (33% versus 67% respectively). It is important to note, however, that as with a majority of the other indicators, this gap in life satisfaction shrinks for younger people aged 18 to 29. For this youngest cohort, 44% of people with disabilities, compared to 57% of people without disabilities, say they are "very satisfied with life"6 - a gap of only 13 percentage points - much less than for people overall where the gap is 34 percentage points.
Despite all of the gaps, 63% of all people with disabilities - and 73% of people with slight disabilities - believe that life has improved for the disabled population over the past decade. Clear majorities feel that overall quality of life, access to public facilities, advertising, media portrayals of people with disabilities, and public attitudes toward people with disabilities have gotten better over the past four years, and no more than 16% say that any of these things have gotten worse. While it is likely that these improvements stem from a variety of factors such as a strong economy and substantial growth in technology, it is reasonable to attribute at least some of this progress to the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Though less so than their non-disabled counterparts, people with disabilities are optimistic about their future. 41% envision their quality of life improving over the coming four years.
Notes:
To determine what gaps exist and to note changes over time, specific quantifiable measurements or "indicators" have been developed for key life activities. A "gap" is defined as the number of percentage points by which Americans with disabilities lag behind other Americans on a given indicator.
- Caution should be used when drawing conclusions from these percentages as the results are based on small sample sizes.
- The 1999 U.S. Census Bureau Poverty Threshold was $17,000 for a family of four.
- Caution should be used when drawing conclusions from these percentages as the results are based on small sample sizes.
- Caution should be used when drawing conclusions from these percentages as the results are based on small sample sizes.
- Caution should be used when drawing conclusions from these percentages as the results are based on small sample sizes.
