As already noted in the discussion, there is no one source for this, so
one has to gather many incomplete and inconsistent sources, and then put
the numbers all together with some adjusting based on things like
judgement, logic and experience.
One possible additional source that comes to mind is Draft Board
statistics. Though this gives a narrow "slice of life" limited in many
ways-- showing a few years (from whenever the draft started to the
mid-70's when it ended), showing only males, and showing only those
between 18 and 26 (the age cut off)... on the other hand one interesting
thing about those stats (if one could find them) would be-- EVERY US
male between those ages had to register for the draft, and had to be
"classified". Some percantage of those classified each year were
classified "4-F" which meant exemption due to not meeting the medical
standards of Army Regulation 201.
This might be considerably more accurate, for it's limited population
covered, than for example the US Census, whose workers asked me NO
questions this year, about disability.
Adjusting needed: "4-F" doesn't precisely indicate incidence of
disability & chronic medical conditions (it included a few conditions
that fall short of that definition, such as -- anti-gay bigotry was
part of the "psychiatric" standards in AR-201, while perhaps ? also
missing a few people who are within the definition of disability)....
but.... IF a breakdown of each year's 4-F classifications, by
'condition", could be found, it would be an interesting thing to compare
with other statistics from other sources in the same year, if they too
were broken down by gender, age, and condition. The Draft Board 4-F
stats, as limited as they were, may be more accurate for that limited
population group -- than disability incidence stats from other sources
- due to the rigorous system of medical & mental ability examinations by
Army doctors (in a very few cases, a doctor's letter would suffice to
get the 4-F; like if you had an undeniable condition like a glass eye)
that one had to go through.... required to get the 4-F. If that
greater accuracy is the case, perhaps these stats (of course -- only the
disabilty-relevant parts of the statistical breakdown) would give
insight into how to calibrate or adjust the stats from other sources,
for greater accuracy.
The military would presumably also have stats on how many people who,
though they passed the AR-201 exam upon enlistment, were later
discharged for certain acquired disabilities.
On the creeping "standards" factor, which one would have to be alert to,
to try to use these stats - - - I recall reading in specialised
literature on the subject, in the early 1970's, that the "medical
standards" for the military draft in the US and in western European
countries, were generally getting "tighter" over the years, because the
pools of available young men to draft, were getting larger, and therefor
they only "needed" a declining percentage of them. It was said that --
continuously increasing the number of physical conditions for which one
could be rejected (adding "flat feet" for example) was seen as a way to
reduce medical costs within the armed services.
===
Tangent: The impact of these "medical standards" for enlistment, in the
US...
Of course these ever escalating "standards" had a huge significance in
terms of discriminatory economic impact on society-- at least during the
60's and 70's in the US, the military was the largest source of job
training in the country, (before most Americans had ever seen a
computer, the Army was reported to have a computerised program, that was
said to be able to teach on a 1:1 basis, illiterate enlistees to read in
just 6 weeks)... not just in terms of training for jobs that only exist
in the military, but in terms of training that you could take with you
to get a good job outside of the military. There were and still are, no
US government job traiing programs in place to offer compensatory job
training opportunities specifically to those who can't get it in the
military, becasue of these medical standards for enlistment. Or because
of who's encoraged to enlist (the most physiacally perfect heterosexual
men) and who's prevented or discouraged from enlisting (the "4-F" groups
discussed, plus women who are discouraged & are not half of the
enlistees getting the job training).
Therefor, for example, when you read that an astonishing 40% of homeless
teen-to-21-year-olds in New York City are lesbian or gay, (when you
might expect that number to be more like 10%)... though this is partly
because of a higher incidence of being "throwaway kids" kicked out by
homophobic families.... it is ALSO partly because -- one of the most
common pieces of advice that the relevent social service agencies give
these homeless kids is -- "Enlist in the military to get a home, food
and especially -- job training." I am told that this is almost the
only advice these agencies can think of to give them. Of course it's
advice that given a policy of blatant anti-gay discrimination in the
military (elevated in the 90's from a mere Army Reg, to a the higher
status of a federal law), and given the often extremely "hostile work
environment" & the persistance of anti-gay violence and murders in the
US military,... the LGBT homeless kids obviously do not have the
option of getting their job-training there, therefor they stay homeless
in higher numbers, than the heterosexual (+ AB) kids.
Jim Davis
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
