Good morning David,
I read your mail with much interest, being very mindful of the old statement
about 'lies, damn lies, and statistics.
In Oz we have ofcourse similar problems, where either no questions are
asked or the wrong ones.
I can not remember seeing questions about disability in the last census, and
have been meaning to draw attention to this with the view of getting a
proper handle on this. My friend Carolyn has spoken with me about the source
of the, I think, 19.3% that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
relies on. I believe it is a projection based on survey results.
What are the questions you believe should be asked in the census?
If governments really wanted to know, a number of questions need to be
asked. The World Health Organization's definition may be a good starting
point: "Disability is a loss or reduction of functional ability which
results from an impairment. An impairment is defined as an anatomical or
functional abnormality or loss which may or may not result in a disability.
Disabilities can derive from impairments which can be physical, sensory,
intellectual or psychiatric."
The ABS recognizes different pigeon holes: Profound - Severe - Moderate -
Mild - Schooling or employment restriction only - p w d without
restrictions. They make some sense, partucularly if they also have a focus
on the level of support needs . I believe a further refinement along the:
physical, sensory, intellectual or psychiatric categories is also useful, as
well as age categories.
Particularly in the severe and profound area it will be helpful to know who
provides the support: family, gov service providers, non government service
providers, nobody, also in family whether it is a single carer, and the age
of carers, single or otherwise, over or under 65.
It is not as big as it may look I think, 4 or 5 questions ought to cover it
reasonably well.
over to you David,
rgds John
----- Original Message -----
From: David Pfeiffer <[log in to unmask]>
To: Disability Studies Research List <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: percentages of pwd in the US population
> The Percentage of the US Population
> Who Are People with Disabilities
>
> David Pfeiffer
> Center on Disability Studies
> University of Hawaii at Manoa
>
>
> Often when discussing the number/percentages of people with
> disabilities in the US I am asked defend my use of the figure of 30%.
> Here is my defense.
> I have two citations. Regretfully neither of them are easily
> available. THEREFORE, since the article citations themselves are
> in the public domain and all of the rest of these comments are my
> own, I hereby give the right of quotation and publication to
> anyone interested PROVIDED that proper reference is given (that
> they are my words). Something like: David Pfeiffer (2000)
> personal communication or else cite it like an Internet message.
> 1. Barbara Altman. (1993) Definitions of disability and
> their measurement and operationalization in survey data.
> PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1993 PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE ON RECORDS AND
> STATISTICS: TOWARD THE YEAR 2000, REFINING THE MEASURES.
> Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
> National Center for Health Statistics, pages 219-24. Comments:
> Using the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey (NMES) data,
> Altman used five definitions of disability to study the sample:
> (1) having a chronic condition; (2) having a functional
> limitation; (3) unable to work; (4) over 30 days in a year in bed
> because of a disability; and (5) receiving SSI, SSDI, or a
> pension because of a disability. In the subsample of working age
> people (18-64 years of age), after removing the overlap in
> definition, she found that 44% are people with disabilities. It
> is generally accepted that 20% of people under 18 are disabled
> and as high as 50% of people over 64 are disabled. Including
> these two groups and disregarding the people who refuse to
> identify as a person with a disability, a figure of 30% of the
> population being people with disabilities is quite defensible.
> 2. Charles S. Wilder. (1968) LIMITATION OF ACTIVITY AND
> MOBILITY.... National Center for Health Statistics, Series 10,
> Number 45, Washington, DC, US Department of Health, Education,
> and Welfare. Comments: In the 1960s the Social Security
> Administration realized that available disability statistics were
> not reliable so they began to obtain their own using the National
> Health Surveys which included all ages of the civilian
> noninstitutionalized population.
> Since it was carried out as a health survey, questions were
> asked about chronic conditions, not a disability. This fact
> probably accounts for more honest responses in the results.
> Twenty seven chronic "conditions" could have been reported
> including allergy, hemorrhoids, hay fever, and chronic skin
> trouble, but also including tuberculosis, stroke, high blood
> pressure, mental illness, heart trouble, and cancer. In addition
> twelve "impairments" could have been reported including hearing,
> vision, and speech impairment, missing extremity, palsy, and
> paralysis of any kind. Notice that by not asking about the
> existence of a disability the survey avoided the stigmatizing
> label.
> The results are reported in Table I in Wilder. It shows that
> 46% of the population reported having one or more of these
> chronic conditions and/or impairments. In addition Table A in
> Wilder gives the percentages of the population reporting one or
> more of these chronic conditions and/or impairments from July
> 1957 to June 1966. They range from 41% to 49% with an arithmetic
> mean of 44%.
> It can be argued that many cases of hay fever, high blood
> pressure, hemorrhoids, and allergy are not disabling. However,
> some cases are clearly disabling. In addition, many persons
> reporting one or more of these chronic conditions and/or
> impairments will not identify as disabled. For these reasons,
> disregard about one third of the respondents. Do NOT add in the
> percentage of people who are mentally retarded or who have a
> learning disability (both left out of the survey questionnaire),
> and do not add in any percentages of persons who do not yet know
> they have a disabling case of heart trouble or cancer or similar
> problems. Leaving out this number, it can still be said that some
> 30% of the US population is disabled.
> One reason that the higher number/percentage is not widely
> accepted is that the courts (both state and federal) will only
> accept disability statistics which come from the US Census.
> However these numbers are too low. The 1970 and 1980 questions
> were similar to the 1990 Census Questionnaire. In 1990 the Census
> Bureau obtained data on people with disabilities using the
> following questions.
> Question 18: "Does this person [the respondent or a person
> for whom the respondent is answering] have a physical, mental, or
> other health condition that has lasted for 6 or more months and
> which - a. Limits the kind or amount of work this person can do
> at a job? [Answer Yes or No] b. Prevents this person from working
> at a job? [Answer Yes or No]"
> As a wheelchair user from polio at age nine and who has
> worked for 38 years of my life, I would respond with "no" to both
> parts of question 18. But, you say, be realistic because I could
> never be a National League Football player. Well, neither could
> most people. Everyone has some limitation in the kind or the
> amount of work which she/he can do.
> Question 19: "Because of a health condition that has lasted
> for 6 or more months, does this person [the respondent or a
> person for whom the respondent is answering] have any difficulty
> - a. Going outside the home alone, for example, to shop or visit
> a doctor's office? [Answer Yes or No] b. Taking care of his or
> her own personal needs such as bathing, dressing, or getting
> around inside the home? [Answer Yes or No]"
> I would answer "no" to each of these parts of question 19.
> But consider that almost everyone has difficulty going out of the
> home (alone or not) during a blizzard or during mid-day in July
> and August in many urban areas. And many people who live in two
> or three story houses have some problem going up and down the
> stairs. In other words, these questions, which are based upon
> being able to carry out certain functions, are not adequate
> questions to use to determine if a person is disabled or not.
> In 1980 the Census Bureau asked about using public
> transportation instead of Question 19. However, they realized
> that most of the country does not have public transportation and
> in those areas which do have it, many so-called non-disabled
> persons have a very difficult time using it. So they changed it.
> In the 2000 Census long form, Form D-2, there are two
> questions with a total of six subparts regarding disability.
> "16. 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? [If a person has no problem with
> sight or hearing and is fairly active, then this question does
> not classify them as disabled.]"
> "17. 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 if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER)
> Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?
> [Why mention a doctor's office?] d. (Answer if this person is 16
> YEARS OLD OR OVER) Working at a job or business? [Again, a number
> of people with disabilities who have no problem "getting around"
> would be missed.]"
> They made the same mistake and many persons with
> disabilities will not be counted. The Census Bureau is aware of
> the problems with their questions and, to their credit, tried to
> come up with an adequate one. They have not succeeded, but they
> have gradually raised the number of people who are disabled to
> 20%. So if you can not convince people with 30%, you can rely on
> the Census Bureau's 20% even if this figure is too low.
>
> August 1, 2000
>
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
> Resident Scholar
> Center on Disability Studies
> University of Hawai`i at Manoa
> [log in to unmask]
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Center on Disability Studies....maximizing individual
> potential by encouraging independence, self-determination,
> and full participation in the community.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
