WORK, INCOME AND DISABILITY IN AMERICA
Leslie A. Shebley
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
SOCIOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2011
WORK, INCOME AND DISABILITY IN AMERICA
A Thesis
by
Leslie A. Shebley
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Jacqueline Carrigan, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Amy Liu, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Leslie A. Shebley
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Amy Liu, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Sociology
iii
Abstract
of
WORK, INCOME AND DISABILITY IN AMERICA
by
Leslie A. Shebley
Close to ten percent of the U.S. is without paid employment. Increased national unemployment
rates are even more devastating for those, such as people with disabilities, who already
experience higher rates of unemployment, even during successful economic times. It is the
purpose of this thesis to look at employment and income of the disability community in the U.S.
Using the 2006 American Community Survey, this study looks at the impact of disability on work
and income while controlling for other factors that can influence employment and wages, such as
age, sex, education, marital status, and race. It will also breakdown disability by type, using the
six labels of disability that the American Community Survey created for their survey and look at
the sociodemographic predictors of each type of disability. This study finds similar results as
previous studies, which have shown that people with disabilities experience lower employment
rates than their non-disabled counterparts (Mitchell et al. 2006) and therefore experience lower
levels of income.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Jacqueline Carrigan, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
iv
DEDICATION
To my husband Jared, who stuck with me and to my son Kellen for providing us with joy. I love
you both.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………………...vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………4
3. METHODS…………………………………………………………………………………..18
Dependent Variables………………………………………………………………………19
Independent Variables....…………………………………………………………………..20
Controls……………………………………………………………………………………21
Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………23
4. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………25
5. DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………………………….36
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………...41
References ………………………………………………………………………………………43
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................ 26
2. Demographic Predictors of Disability Logistic Results ........................................................ 28
3. Predictors of Employment and Income Regression Results ................................................ 32
vii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Unemployment is an important topic throughout the United States. The U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the national unemployment rate for May 2011 to be
9.1% (July 5th, 2011). Close to ten percent of the U.S. is without paid employment.
Increased national unemployment rates are even more devastating for those, such as
people with disabilities, who already experience higher rates of unemployment, even
during successful economic times. It is the purpose of this thesis to look at employment
and income of the disability community in the U.S. To lay the ground work for this
research, chapter two will focus on previous research as well as sociological theory which
may help to give a more detailed picture of how people with disabilities fare with regard
to employment and income in America. This paper will also look at disability as a social
creation.
People with disabilities are concerned about unemployment as well as
underemployment. Nagi, Mcbroom, and Collette noted in their 1972 article, “Work,
Employment and the Disabled”, that many studies on disability and employment focus on
nuanced disability groups instead of looking at the disability community as a whole. The
author’s own research has shown her observation to be true today with the exception of
macro studies performed by agencies such as the U.S. Census Bureau. This research will
address the broad picture of disability, income and employment in America, as well as
look at several specific disabilities and how they influence work and income.
2
In 2004, a study was conducted with the purpose of ascertaining what
employment concerns people with varying types of disabilities have (Nary, White, Budde
& YenVo 2004). It was found that people with disabilities were extremely concerned
about issues such as employment and vocational rehabilitation. Participants of this study
reported income levels either below or right above the poverty line.
Businesses as a whole have become successful in recruiting and hiring individuals
from minority groups. Employment rates for most minority groups have drastically
increased since the days of the Civil Rights Movement. However, not every minority
group can claim such advancements. Green and Brooke report that,
“[e]fforts to recruit people from other minorities such as Hispanics, African
Americans, women, and older workers have generated more interest and results
than efforts focusing on people with disabilities” (83:2001).
Green and Brooke also discuss how the percentage of workers with disabilities who are
unemployed remained the same at about three-fourths of the population from 1989
through 2000, even though most have reported that they want to work (2001). However,
Nary et. al. state that there are a myriad of obstacles that still keep people with disabilities
from earning a living wage, even if they can obtain some form of paid employment
(2004).
Most people with disabilities want to work. An interesting finding to note is that
“1 in 6 unemployed people with disabilities would like to work whereas only 1 out of 25
unemployed without disabilities wish to work” (Migliore, Mank, Grossi, Rogan 2007: 8).
Not only do people with disabilities want to work, they feel the need to work, just as the
3
majority of society does (Nagi, McBroom, & Collette 1972). However, it is important to
keep in mind that, not only are individuals who possess certain disabilities more desirable
to employers than others, such as those with strictly physical limitations (Nagi et al.
1972), but many employers will often choose employees who have more steady work
histories (Catalano & Kennedy 1998). The logical conclusion, then, would be that
individuals with less stigmatized disabilities have a better chance at obtaining
employment and therefore have strong work histories. It is important to look at the broad
demographic picture of those who have disabilities as well as lower incomes in order to
get a picture of the populations that are suffering the most from unemployment/
underemployment and low incomes.
The Social Model of Disability views the very existence and issues surrounding
the disability community as a societal creation (Randolph & Anderson 2004). Disability
would not exist as an actual social issue if society itself did not insist on defining and
labeling people and statuses. For the purpose of this paper, we will be using this
definition.
Given the continuing struggles of the disabled community in the areas of work
and income, this study will provide a comprehensive look at the impact of disability in
general, as well as specific disabilities, on employment and income in America,
controlling for sociodemographic factors that can also influence work and income. This
study will also establish the sociodemographic predictors of disabilities
4
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The medical model of disability has been widely accepted by mainstream
sociological theorists. Sociology, as a discipline, does not see the Sociology of Disability
as being “a hiring, research, or curriculum interest…” (Titchkosky 2000). However, there
have been advances in the attempt to explain disability on the social level; that is, seeing
disability as more of a social problem than that of a personal medical issue. While not
negating the physical, medical and psychological effects that disability has at an
individual level, part of the purpose of this study is to propose an alternate explanation
for the existence of disability issues, specifically when it comes to the employment and
earnings of people with physical disabilities as well as cognitive and emotional
challenges.
It has been argued that ‘disablism’ should be added to the other major social
structural sources of inequality such as racism, gender discrimination, ageism etc., largely
because each of these variables cannot be studied as exclusive elements of any society
(Oliver 1996). In looking at how different forms of discrimination manifest themselves,
social scientists will be forced to include disability as a societal issue and not simply an
individual battle. Oliver, Barnes and Abberley call this the sociology of disablement
(1996).
Social Theories of Disability
5
For sociology, the medical model has been the dominant way of researching and
explaining disability (Barton 1996). However, the medical model does not approach the
issue of disability based on its creation in society but rather looks at how “disabled
persons are deciphered but not understood” (Titchkosky 2000: 217). Society views
disability as a personal problem that demands a subjective approach when discussing and
analyzing the problems that individuals with disabilities face. This viewpoint further
promotes the idea that disability is the sole issue of the person who experiences it, a
problem that separates the ‘abled’ from the disabled.
Other theories, such as the functionalist perspectives and disability as deviance
(Titchkosky 2000), have attempted to explain the issues and social problems of disability.
The functionalist perspective simply looks at how bonds in society are created based on a
mutual understanding of each individual’s place and his/her usefulness in society
(Abberley 1996). Viewing disability through a functionalist lens almost ensures that the
contributions that the disability community can make to businesses and companies
through work would not be recognized as important or useful due to the comparative
approach of this theory. Functionalism assigns roles to individuals based on their
usefulness comparatively. In order to relegate individuals to a specific function in society,
there must be a standard of measurement that acts as the deciding agent as to whom and
what skills are useful and in turn, where they fit in relation to everyone else. The main
issue here is that many people with disabilities cannot be expected to accomplish tasks in
the same way or even hold the same skill sets as those without disabilities. Therefore,
there cannot be a base system of measurement for their usefulness or the functionality of
6
individuals. The author is not suggesting that people with disabilities cannot accomplish
the same tasks as those without; however, the approach and actions taken to complete a
task or a problem often requires a different set of standards and rules. A set of
measurements that considers all contributions in their own right versus comparing and
ranking them based on importance or perceived validity is needed.
In labeling an individual with a disability, society is not only limiting that person
but adding extra stress and pressure to the families (Olsson & Hwang 2006) as well as
marginalizing portions of society’s own population. A person with a disability label is
often further labeled with the adjectives ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ attached to the
beginning of said diagnosis (e.g. moderate retardation). Labels exist, in part, to further
categorize people into descriptions of not only what to expect of them, but what benefits
and social services they will qualify for and potentially receive throughout their lives. It
is the latter reason that is often referred to when defending and promoting the continued
need to label individuals.
McDermott and Varenne (1995) approach the topic of disability as it relates to
culture from an anthropological perspective. They see culture, with its hierarchical
development and static systems of doing things as, in itself, creating the idea of the haves
and the have not’s, the disabled and the non-disabled. In their analysis of different
cultural practices when it comes to education and communication norms, McDermott and
Varenne acknowledge every culture’s structure as a system that will automatically create
those individuals who will qualify for full inclusion based on their obvious understanding
and compliance with cultural standards. In turn, there will always be those who fall short
7
of what is expected by that culture and therefore acquire the label of having a disability.
They state, “Culture, the great enabler, is disabling” (1995: 331).
The labeling of those with disabilities is a cultural or social practice that allows
members of a group to rationalize and justify the shortcomings of the system that they
have created. Every society has created certain “enabling conditions” under which
individuals might prosper (Wong: 2007). What if people don’t prosper? What if some
people that were born into or have joined a certain culture cannot prosper under the same
conditions as the rest of their group seem to be able to? McDermott and Varenne say that
this is when an individual is labeled as having a disability. Wong states that this
realization of an apparent lack in one of its members causes society to embrace “[t]erms
such as “mildly, “severely,” or “profoundly” retarded [that] do not refer to natural kinds,
but rather to socially constructed categories that are highly unstable” (2007: 588).
According to Titchkosky, sociology views disability as “the condition of having, and thus
being, a problem” (2000: 208). Each of these authors and researchers point out that there
is a pattern of beginning analysis of the social problem on a micro-level, with the
individual, instead of on the macro –level with society, first. However, it is this
researcher’s understanding that sociology sets itself apart from other social sciences in
that it looks at the group that is our society as being the creator of all things socially
acceptable.
Modern sociological theory would not be what it is today without the
contributions of Karl Marx and his discussion of capitalism and how it has altered the
very basis of societal values and interactions, specifically in the areas of labor
8
commodification and materialism (1844). Marx’s work is the basis of Mike Oliver’s
theory of the oppression of individuals with disabilities, wherein Oliver views the
emergence and continued existence of capitalistic ideals to be the basis for societal
oppression of the disability community (1996).
Oliver argues that capitalism’s focus on production and profit has rendered null
the potential contributions of individuals with disabilities within the labor market (1996).
Due to the physical and psychological impairments of people with disabilities, society
turns to deficit based models of interacting with individuals with disabilities, which in
turn, creates hegemony toward those whose abilities are measured against an idealized
norm. The subjugation of people with disabilities assumes inherent issues with disability.
Individual medical problems are blamed for the lack of equality that people with
disabilities experience, instead of viewing disability in terms of oppression and a problem
with society itself. Disability, according to Oliver, is blamed on the individual and the
solution that is sanctioned is one of medical help instead of structural change and
reorganization.
Employment
The social model of disability maintains that society as a whole- its structures,
institutional as well as physical, political and economic framework- in addition to its
expectations of performance and contribution, was created based on the experiences and
concerns of people without disabilities (Abberley 1996). It is for this reason that work,
employment and the expectation of certain standards of production act as barriers to
9
employment for people who cannot meet the typical expectations in the way that most
can.
It used to be that individuals with more severe disabilities were not expected to
work and were usually not given the opportunity due to the belief that they were
incapable of performing the most basic of tasks (Mank, Cioffi and Yovanoff 1998). It is
for this reason that supported employment became a popular method used in order to
entice businesses to hire people with varying disabilities. In supported employment, the
new employee with a disability receives a job coach who will aid her in learning and
executing job tasks. Employers who have experience working with those receiving job
coaching, have a more positive outlook on their participation and contribution in the
workplace (Petty, Martin & Fussell 1997 Gillbride, Coughlin, Mitus & Scott 2007).
However, Mank et. al. (1998) found that the more severe the disability (notice the
adjective ‘severe’), the less likely an individual was to be involved in meaningful
employment (Olsson and Hwang 2006; McDermott and Varene 1998). Although the term
‘severe’ is not defined by Mank et al., the use of hierarchical categories of disabilities
speaks to the emphasis that is placed on labeling an individual based on his or her
perceived contribution. It is as if, in using the term ‘severe’, the reader is meant to
assume that there are specific criteria that place someone into hierarchical categories
which should not only speak to the disability that the individual possesses but that of his
or her capability and potential societal contribution. Individuals with a label that
embodied the idea of having a less severe disability were more likely to have higher
wages and longer work histories.
10
Peck and Kirkbride identify several major fears that businesses have with regard
to hiring and retaining individuals that have a label of a disability (2001). Businesses
reported that they were afraid of “being stuck” (74) with an employee who had slowed
the working process down as well as the potential increased costs of initial hiring and
extra supervision. These businesses express common capitalistic concerns. With regard to
employment, Loprest and Maag feel that “it is the limitation in the activity that is
disabling, not necessarily the condition or impairment” (2007: 51). Since the businesses
in Peck and Kirkbride’s study are simply expressing ‘fears’ about employing someone
with a disability, it is the label itself that strikes fear and doubt in the heart of a
production-minded businessperson.
Social Security Income & Its Effects
The earlier the acquisition of SSI or SSDI benefits, the less likely one will not
only obtain but even search for paid employment (Kennedy & Olney 2006). Batavia and
Beaulaurier recognize the precarious and limited funds of those with disabilities (2001),
which makes it even more important for them to maintain a steady income, hopefully in
the form of paid employment. Even so, many of the jobs that a less-educated person with
a disability can get often do not provide enough of a financial incentive to begin/
maintain employment if the option of receiving public assistance (SSI benefits) exists
(Mitchell et. al. 2006). In addition, Mitchell et. al recognizes the fear that one might have
of losing SSI benefits should earned wages be lost. SSI benefits are vital to the
livelihoods of many people with disabilities (Berry 2000, Mitchell et. al. 2006).
11
In an earlier study, Levitan and Taggart examine the decline in workforce
participation by individuals with disabilities. They address issues that some contemporary
researchers are grappling with today;
“As benefit levels improved […], the option of not working became more
attractive than the low-wage, menial jobs available to many of the disabled. At the
same time, however, it is clear that the disabled were pushed as well as pulled out
of the labor market (1977: 9).
The benefits to which the authors refer were Social Security benefits. Levitan and
Taggart embrace a loose definition of disability, which is why their research is applicable
to this study. Additionally, their observation made over 40 years ago has continued to
fuel the research being done in order to understand the high enrollment and often,
subsequent longevity in receiving SSI and SSDI benefits of those individuals with
disabilities.
Burkhauser and Stapleton embrace the above observation made by Levitan and
Taggart when they discuss the role that SSI and SSDI benefits play in the phenomena of
long-term recipients failing to obtain employment (2004). However, they couple the
element of the recession during the early 1990’s with the “expansions” of SSI/SSDI
(2004: 194).
Olsen and Flugstad state that SSDI benefits caseloads are on the rise and refer to
SSDI as a “forgotten entitlement” (2009: 42). They maintain that SSDI benefits and
Medicaid Long Term Care (LTC) are government financial provisions that have been
increasing substantially for years and show only a small percentage of disenrollment.
Many people with disabilities receive both of these benefits and would only become
12
ineligible if they were able to obtain a job where their income would be roughly double
their SSDI check. They would have to earn above their monthly stipend from SSDI, a
fact that poses not only a personal and financial decision for those receiving benefits, but
also a societal conundrum. The current output for SSDI and LTC assets will be exhausted
by 2017 (Olsen & Flugstad 2009: 47), a reality with which the U.S. is currently
grappling. Research on this topic is needed if we are going to understand the problem.
Resources are being drained, but we must understand why this is happening. Is it
because people who receive SSDI and LTC, as well as other government benefits, are
relying solely on these subsidies for their livelihood, instead of using them as a way of
supplementing their earned income? If so, can society as a whole remedy part of the
problem by employing those with disabilities who are ready and willing to work? Much
of the research that has been discussed in this section, and following, reveal several issues
surrounding employment and people with disabilities. First, the majority of people with
disabilities want to work. Second, employers seem to have many reasons, real or feared,
why they are unwilling or hesitant to employ someone with a disability. Through this
research and review of studies previously done, the author wishes to address the issues
and propose potential solutions to society.
Despite the increased participation among the disability population in the receipt
of SSI/SSDI benefits, a significant portion of this population reports having some form of
paid employment (Kennedy & Olney 2006). The percentage is small but Kennedy and
Olney feel that it is enough to promote the further expansion of employment services to
individuals receiving Social Security benefits. They feel that, with better programs and
13
more extensive resources for those that want to work, there should occur a subsequent
disenrollment from the Social Security benefits system as individuals begin to earn
employment wages.
Demographics & Disability
Most studies done within the disability field in general tend to look at
employment rates across demographic characteristics such as gender, age and education
(Rabren, Hall & Brown 2003, Martz and Jade Xu 2008). While gender has been proven
to have an effect on the employment of people with disabilities, results that consider
gender vary greatly based on the type of disability as well as other sociodemographic
characteristics (Mitchell, Adkins & Kemp 2006, Rabren et. al. 2003, Martz and Jade Xu
2008, Berry 2000). Age and education are also influences on employment outcomes for
people with disabilities (Mitchell, Adkins & Kemp 2006, Rabren et. al. 2003, Martz and
Jade Xu 2008, Berry 2000).
Gender has proven to be a key factor when considering employment for 18- 22
year-olds, especially when looking at specific disabilities (Berry 2000, Rabren et. al.
2003, Martz & Jade Xu 2008). According to Berry, employment rates for men between
the ages of eighteen and twenty-two years increase by half in comparison with their
female counterparts (2000) while men with visual disabilities also have higher rates of
employment (Martz & Jade Xu: 2008). This is not to say that women who are outside of
their ‘transition’ (18- 22 years) years never catch up to their male counterparts. However,
there is little if any research that covers the area of gender and employment across the
14
disability population in general. The lack of comprehensive research in this area is
something that the author would like to help remedy with this study.
In considering transition-age adults, the amount of education is significantly and
directly related to obtaining employment (Berry 2000, Rabren et. al. 2003). Studies have
shown that those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two years are more likely to
obtain employment if they have completed high school versus those who did not. Further,
Mitchell et. al. (2006) and Martz and Jade Xu (2008), report that higher levels of
education positively affect employment outcomes not just in adults who are transitioning
but also for adults with disabilities in all stages of life.
Age affects employment negatively according to Mitchell, Adkins and Kemp
(2006). In their study of how people with disabilities compare to people without
disabilities in regard to employment rates throughout life, they find that those with
disabilities have a much lower rate of employment in their 40’s than those without a
disability. The decrease in employment for people without disabilities tends to happen
during the later years in life (50’s and 60’s). They report that within their sample, “42%
[decline for people with disabilities in their 40’s] and a second decline in the 60’s to
28%” (2006: 161). They compare this to their finding which shows that people without
disabilities experience an unemployment rate of 74% in their 50’s. Aside from the
employment rate disparity concerning age, there is further evidence here that
demonstrates the extreme employment difference between those with and without
disabilities, period
15
Race
Previous research documents the increased number of minorities with disabilities,
specifically blacks (Smart & Smart, 1997). This has been attributed to the fact that
blacks often occupy a lower socioeconomic status and have limited access to types of
employment beyond “physically demanding and higher risk jobs” (Smart & Smart, 1997:
7). Essentially, blacks work in dangerous jobs that can exacerbate their risks of disability
as well as pay them less.
Smith and Alston’s research in the area of disability, race and life satisfaction,
helps to clarify how African Americans who have disabilities report lower rates of life
satisfaction as well as lower levels of income (2009). Among the variables used in their
study, they looked at life satisfaction and employment rates of people with disabilities
and compared those rates across racial categories and found that among African
Americans, dissatisfaction with life is related to lower employment rates, as well as,
lower income levels where they are “less likely to earn over $50,000 per year” (6).
Additionally, Smith and Alston (2009) found that “African Americans with
disabilities are more likely than Caucasians with disabilities to have some college
education” (6). That being the case, one might assume that since African Americans with
disabilities have higher education levels than Caucasians with disabilities, they would
have higher employment rates as well. However, this is not the case. Minorities in
general have lower employment rates, earn less, and have higher rates of disability than
do whites (Smart & Smart 1997).
16
Law & Public Policy
Public policy, including the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), has been
examined by many as a possible contributor to the attitudinal indifference and negativity
among the business community toward those with disabilities. Some researchers refer to
the ambiguous wording of the ADA as contributing to the difference in the rulings of
court decisions (Rioux, Crawford & Anweiler 2001, Burkhauser & Stapleton 2004). For
every lawsuit that is decided by a court, there emerges a ruling that is often inconsistent
with those that came before it. Even though laws and policy are put in place to eliminate
discrimination in a society, it doesn’t mean that they will change the attitudes of its
members (Wong 2007). Laws only go so far in bridging the gap between people with
disabilities and the rest of society. It is necessary to educate people about those that they
so often overlook and highlight their specific strengths and potential societal
contributions.
People with disabilities, across the board, have lower levels of employment as
well as less education than those without disabilities. Much of this can be explained
through social theories, which describe how society relies on a deficit-based model to
explain the challenges that people with disabilities face when it comes to work and
school. They are seen to be lacking the necessary skills, in comparison with their nondisabled counterparts, that are essential to successfully participate in mainstream
education and the workforce. There also seems to be a relationship between the capitalist
ideas that the U.S. holds dear, with regard to standards and rates of production and the
ability of those with physical and cognitive challenges, to meet the standards that society
17
has set forth as acceptable. There has been an attempt by the government to mitigate
some of the barriers and setbacks that those with disabilities encounter with regard to
employment by way of the Americans With Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination laws.
Even so, it would seem that people with disabilities have yet to accomplish the progress
that other minority individuals have made over the last forty-years.
The forthcoming analysis will look at the impact of disability on work and income
while controlling for other factors that can influence employment and wages, such as
age, sex, education, marital status, and race. It will also breakdown disability by type,
using the six labels of disability that the American Community Survey created for their
2005 survey and look at the sociodemographic predictors of each type of disability. It is
the author’s hope that, through this analysis there will be a clearer understanding of the
employment and income problems experienced by the disability community. Preliminary
analysis will look at the social and demographic predictors of disabilities, then the
following hypotheses will be addressed, each controlling for sociodemographic
variables.
Hypothesis 1: People with disabilities are less likely to have worked in the last year.
Hypothesis 2: People with disabilities work less hours per week.
Hypothesis 3: People with disabilities work fewer weeks in the past year.
Hypothesis 4: People with disabilities have lower total incomes.
Hypothesis 5: People with disabilities will have higher supplemental security income.
Hypothesis 6: People with disabilities will have lower self-employment income.
18
Chapter 3
METHODS
The forthcoming analysis will look at the impact of disability on work and income
while controlling for other factors that can influence employment and wages, such as
age, sex, education, marital status, and race. It will also breakdown disability by type,
using the six labels of disability that the American Community Survey created for their
2006 survey and look at the sociodemographic predictors of each type of disability. It is
the author’s hope that, through this analysis there will be a clearer understanding of the
employment and income problems experienced by the disability community.
Data Set
In 2006 the American Community Survey (ACS) was disbursed nationwide to
both housing units as well as group quarters. In 2005, the survey was disseminated across
the U.S. only to individual housing units. ACS obtains similar data every year from cities
across the nation (“American Community Survey” 2009). The ACS is a yearly survey
that is meant to provide updated information about the U.S. Data is collected by survey
mail-outs, non-response phone calls, and in-person-interviews. Households are chosen
randomly. The information gathered through this survey help’s identify areas of need
across the country and is then used to allocate government funds.
The sample that ACS uses to collect data every year, changes, however the
sample selection does not (Design and Methodology, Chapter 4 2009). It is a two-phase
19
sample selection process. Approximately one out of forty addresses will receive the
American Community Survey in the mail in a year. Law mandates response to the ACS.
For the purposes of this paper, the information that ACS gathered with regard to
disability, employment, respondent demographics, industry or type of work that the
respondent is involved in, and income sources will be used.
Dependent Variables
Employment
To ascertain the employment status of a respondent, as well as, the degree to
which the respondent is employed (i.e. full-time, part-time etc.), three variables were
taken into consideration.
Each respondent answered the question “When did this
person last work, even for a few days” by choosing between these three responses:
“Within the past 12 months”, “1to 5 years ago” or “Over 5 years ago or never worked”.
For the purpose of this study, this variable was recoded into a dummy variable with 0
meaning that it had been a year or more since the respondent had worked and 1 meaning
that the respondent had worked within the past 12 months.
To obtain the degree to which the respondent was employed, two other variables
were considered. The two questions asked in the survey included; “During the past 12
months, how many weeks did this person work?” and “During the past 12 months, in the
weeks worked, how many hours did this person usually work each week?”. A blank space
20
was provided after each question where the respondent could write in their answer.
Recoding was not necessary for these variables.
Income
Respondents were allowed to fill in their yearly income received from varying
sources, such as earned wages, self-employment, SSI etc. After writing in the amounts
that they receive from the source possibilities, their total income was calculated. Income
variables are important to this analysis due to the fact that they demonstrate how
demographic characteristics play a role in the amount of income received from varying
sources.
Independent Variables
Disability
There are six disability categories that ACS identifies in their 2006 survey.
Sensory, Mental, Physical, Go-Outside-of-Home, Self-Care and Employment disabilities
are established by three questions that are each split into two sub-questions. The first
question in this series is asked to determine whether or not the respondent has (a) a
Sensory disability or (b) Physical disability. The respondent must check “yes” or “no”
when asked, “Does this person have any of the following long lasting conditions:” (ACS
2006: 7). Having a sensory disability is determined by “a. Blindness, deafness, or a
severe hearing or vision impairment?” and having a physical disability is determined by
21
sub-question “b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities
such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying?” (ACS 2006: 7).
Mental and self-care disabilities are determined by a yes or no answer to the
following question and sub-questions: “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:” (ACS 2006:7). For mental disability the question was, “a.
Learning, remembering, or concentrating?” and for self-care disability the question was
“b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home?” (ACS 2006: 7).
The final question in the disability series determines whether the respondent has a
go-outside-of home or work disability. The question “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:” (ACS 2006: 8). Having a go-outside-of-home
disability was established by the question, “ a. Going outside the home alone to shop or
visit the doctor’s office?” and a work disability was established by asking, “b. Working at
a job or business?” (ACS, 2006:8). The respondent must answer “yes” or “no”. Each
variable was recoded into a dummy variable with 0= no and 1= yes to having that
specific disability.
Controls
Sex
22
The sex of the respondent is determined by the question “What is this person’s
sex?” (ACS 2005-06). The respondent can check one of the box’s ‘male’ or ‘female’.
This variable was recoded into a dummy variable with 0= female and 1= male.
Age
Age is determined by asking the double-barreled question “ What is this person’s
age and what is this person’s date of birth?” There are blank spaces provided for both age
and date of birth where the respondent is expected to write in the correct answer. The
answers to this question made up one variable and recoding was unnecessary.
Marital Status
Marital status was ascertained by asking, “What is this person’s marital status?”
giving the respondent five options from which to choose from (Married, Widowed,
Divorced, Separated, Never Married). The responses were recoded into a dummy variable
where 0= not married (Widowed, Separated and Never Married) and 1= Married.
Race
Race is measured using two questions. The first asks “Is this person
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?”, where respondents can choose “No, not
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino”, “Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano”, “Yes, Puerto Rican”,
“Yes, Cuban”, “Yes, other Spanish, Hispanic, Latino” (The American Community
Survey 3: 2005-06). There is a blank space allowing for a written-in option. The second
23
question that determines race asks the question “What is this person’s race?”. There are a
myriad of categories including, “White”, “Black or African American”, “American
Indian or Alaska Native”, “Asian Indian”, “Chinese”, “Filipino” etc. There is also a blank
space provided where the respondent can fill in his or her race. These two variables were
combined and then further recoded into five separate dummy variables: White, Black,
Asian, Hispanic and Other.
Education
The respondent’s level of education was determined by the question “What is the
highest degree or level of school this person has completed?” (7). The possible answers
ranged from ‘No schooling completed’ to ‘Doctorate degree’. Education was recoded into
seven separate categories: 0= no schooling completed, 1= Nursery school through 12th
grade with no diploma, 3= High School Graduate, 4= Some college, 5= Associates
degree, 6= Bachelor’s degree, and 7= Master’s degree through Doctorate degree.
Analysis
First, descriptive statistics were produced for all of the variables included in the
analysis. Second, separate logistic regression analyses were run for general disability and
each specific type of disability to explore their social and demographic predictors. The
dependent variables for each of these regressions will be the different types of
disabilities that ACS addresses in their survey; Sensory, Mental, Physical, Go-Outside-
24
of-Home, Self-Care and Employment as well as disability itself (meaning, whether a
respondent has a disability in general).
Third, logistic regression analysis will be used to address the first hypothesis that
people with disabilities will be less likely to have worked in the last year. Multiple
regression analyses will be used to address the remaining hypotheses that people with
disabilities will: work fewer hours per week, work fewer weeks in the past year, have
lower total incomes, higher supplemental security incomes and lower self-employment
incomes.
25
Chapter 4
RESULTS
The following chapter includes the analyses and the results in this study. Table 1
provides a description of the sample. Table 2 shows the social and demographic
predictors of disabilities. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses addressing
the impact of having a disability on work and income, controlling for social and
demographic factors.
The mean age of the survey respondent is thirty-nine years and they have a high
school education on average (Table 1). The mean number of hours respondents work is
just less than thirty-nine hours per week, working forty-four weeks per year. Nine percent
of respondents are looking for work and 67.5% of respondents have worked within the
past year where, for 32.5% of respondents, it has been one or more years since they
worked.
Of those who earn an income through self-employment, the mean amount of
earnings per year is $33,082 (2,756.83 per month). Those respondents who receive
income from Social Security receive an average of $6,742 per year ($561.83 per month).
The overall income of respondents is $24,073 ($2006.08 per month).
Females make up over 51% of the respondents for this survey. Fifty-six percent of
respondents are not married. White respondents make up 68.6% of the survey population,
10.2% are black, 4.9% are Asian, 13.7% are Hispanic and 2.6% make up the racial
category that the researcher has labeled “Other” due to a low number of respondents who
make up other minority populations.
26
Respondents with disabilities make up 16.2% of the survey sample. Among those
who have a disability, 6.3% of respondents claim to have difficulty remembering, 4.8%
have a disability that affects the eyes or ears (sensory disability), 6.2% have a disability
that affects them going outside of their home, 3.6% have a disability that affects their
ability to care for themselves, 10.4% have a physical disability and 11.6% have a
disability that affects their ability to work.
Table 1- Descriptive Statistics
Variables
AGE
Mean
SD
39.14
13.10
3.4
1.94
# OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK
38.88
13.17
# OF WEEKS WORKED IN PAST YEAR
43.96
14.03
SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME (Yearly)
$33,082
5.54
SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME (Yearly)
$6,742
$4,005
$24,073
4.11
EDUCATION (3= HS GRAD)
TOTAL INCOME (Yearly)
PERCENT
SEX
0= Female
51.3
1= Male
48.7
MARITAL STATUS
0= Not Married
56.0
1= Married
44.0
WHITE
68.6
BLACK
10.2
RACE
27
ASIAN
HISPANIC
OTHER
4.9
13.7
2.6
DISABILITY
1= Yes, Respondent does have disability
16.2
LOOKING FOR WORK?
1= Yes
9.0
WHEN LAST WORKED?
1= within last 12 months
67.5
DIFFICULTY REMEMBERING?
Yes
6.3
DISABILITY AFFECTING EYES/EARS?
Yes
4.8
DISABILITY THAT EFFECTS GOING OUTSIDE OF HOME?
Yes
6.2
DISABILITY THAT AFFECTS ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF SELF?
Yes
3.6
PHYSICAL DISABILITY?
Yes
10.4
DISABILITY THAT AFFECTS ABILITY TO WORK
Yes
11.6
________________________________________________________________________
Demographic Predictors of Disability
Logistic regression analyses find that disabilities do vary by demographic
characteristics (Table 2). Model 1 is an analysis of the predictors of disability in general
and it shows that men are significantly more likely to have a disability than women
28
(OR=1.031, se=.007). Age also increases chances of having a disability (OR=1.057, se=
.000). People who are black (OR=1.347, se=.010) have high odds of having a disability in
comparison with their white counterparts. Respondents who are “Other” races
(OR=1.789, se=.019) also have increased odds of having a disability in comparison with
white respondents. What is true in model 1 remains constant in the demographics of those
who have difficulty remembering in model 2. The older respondents get,
Table 2- Demographic Predictors of Disability Logistic Results
Dependent
Disability
Difficulty
Remembering
Difficulty
Hearing/
Seeing
Difficulty
Going
Outside of
Home
Physical
Difficulty
Difficulty
Working
Difficulty
Taking Care of
Self
1.031**
(.007)
1.047**
(.010)
1.463**
(.013)
.833**
(.012)
.910**
(.008)
.962**
(.009)
.893**
(.015)
1.057**
(.000)
1.036**
(.000)
1.054**
(.001)
1.055**
(.000)
1.078**
(.000)
1.069**
(.000)
1.067**
(.001)
.715**
(.002)
.657**
(.003)
.766**
(.004)
.657**
(.004)
.726**
(.003)
.683**
(.003)
.686**
(.005)
.455**
(.007)
.338**
(.011)
.564**
(.014)
.381**
(.013)
.519**
(.009)
.413**
(.009)
.431**
(.015)
1.347**
(.010)
1.196**
(.014)
1.168**
(.019)
1.293**
(.017)
1.433**
(.012)
1.344**
(.012)
1.478**
(.020)
.637**
(.020)
.581**
(.032)
.619**
(.041)
.884**
(.033)
.527**
(.027)
.644**
(.026)
.603**
(.047)
.984**
(.001)
.974**
(.002)
.992**
(.003)
.976**
(.003)
.981**
(.002)
.973**
(.002)
.971**
(.003)
1.789**
(.019)
1.715**
(.026)
1.992**
(.033)
1.646**
(.033)
1.892**
(.023)
1.661**
(.024)
1.739**
(.039)
Independent
Male (Sex)
Age
Education
Marital Status
Black
Asian
Hispanic
Other
Note: 1. All are Logistic Regressions 2. The standard error rate is in parenthesis
*p<.05, **p<.01
29
the more likely they are to have difficulty remembering (OR=1.078, se=.000). If the
respondents are males (OR=1.047, se=.010), their chances of having a memory disability
are higher than if they were females. Those who are black (OR=1.196, se=.014) are also
more likely to have a memory disability than those who are white. Additionally, those
who are “other” races (OR=1.715, se=.026) have increased odds of having a disability,
which affects their memory. Respondents who are Asian (OR=.581, se=.032) also follow
this pattern and are more likely to have a memory disability than those who are white,
though their odds are less than their black counterparts. While education is significant in
this model (OR=.657, se=.003), being more educated plays less of a role in whether or
not they have difficulty remembering. The same can be said for whether or not
respondents are married (OR=.338, se=.011). While still significant, marital status is not
a major predictor of a memory disability. In model 3, we see that being male (OR=1.463,
se=.013) is very significant as a positive predictor as to whether or not respondents will
have difficulty hearing/ seeing. Being older (OR=1.054, se=.001) also increases odds of
having a sensory disability, which affects the eyes or ears. Additionally, being black
(OR=1.168, se=.019) increases a respondent’s odds of having difficulty seeing or
hearing. Likewise, respondents of “other” races (OR=1.992 se=.003) have increased odds
of having a disability that involves hearing or vision difficulties. Model 4 is consistent
with the previous 3 models in that “Age” (OR=1.055, se=.000) is significant when
looking at the overall demographic of those who have a disability that affects their ability
to go outside of their home. Being “Black” (OR=1.293, se=.017) also increases the odds
of having a disability that affects one’s ability to go outside of the home. “Other”
30
(OR=1.646, se=.033) races also have an increased chances of having this type of
disability. Once again, we see that black and “other” race respondents are more likely to
have difficulty going outside of their home than those who are white. Asian (OR=.884,
se=.033) and Hispanic (OR=.976, se=.003) respondents are less likely to have this type of
disability. Sex (OR=.833, se=.012) also proves to be a significant predictor. In model 5,
respondents who have a physical disability are likely to have a similar demographic
profile as those in model 4 (with difficulty going outside of their home). Respondents
who are older (OR=1.078, se=.000) are more likely to experience a physical disability, as
seen is model 5. “Black” (OR=1.433, se=.012) respondents also have higher rates of
physical disability than do white respondents. “Other” (OR=1.892, se=.023) races also
experience high rates of disability. Those who have difficulty working (model 6) tend to
be older (OR=1.069, se=.000). Respondents who are black (OR=1.344, se=.012) also
experience higher rates of work disability as do members of “Other” (OR=1.661,
se=.024) races. Model 7 respondents mimic this demographic profile. If respondents have
difficulty taking care of themselves, they tend to be older (OR=1.067, se=.001). They
also tend to be black (OR=1.478, se=.020) or members of “other” (OR=1.730, se=.039)
races.
Overall, those with disabilities are male, older and black or members of “other”
races. This is also the case for those who have difficulty remembering or possess a
sensory disability (difficulty hearing or seeing). The profile alters slightly when we look
at the last four categories of disability in this table (Difficulty going outside of home,
physical difficulty, work difficulty or self-care difficulty), as being male is not as
31
important as being older, black or “other”. Across the board, race appears to be a
significant predictor of disability. Those who are black or “other” racial categories are
more likely to have a disability than those who are Asian, Hispanic or White.
Impact of Disability on Employment and Income
In table 3, we see the effect of disability on work-related dependent variables, as
well as income-related variables, when controlling for demographic characteristics.
Model 1 looks at the impact of disability on whether or not respondents have worked in
the past year and finds that (OR=.177, se=.007) disability is a significant predictor of
recent work history when demographic characteristics are controlled. Other predictors of
whether or not respondents have worked within the past year are sex, age, education, and
marital status (OR=2.120, se=.006; OR=1.008, se=.000; OR=1.406, se=.002; OR=1.079,
se=.006). Being male (OR=2.120) increases respondent’s odds of being employed within
the past year compared to females. An increase of one year in age (OR=1.008) raises a
respondent’s odds of having worked within the past year. Those with higher levels of
education (OR=1.406) are also more likely to have worked in the past year. Additionally,
married respondents (OR=1.079) have increased odds of having worked in the past year
compared to those who are not married. Among those who are in the non-white racial
categories listed, being Hispanic (OR=.994, se=.001) or “Other” races (OR=.813,
se=.017) increase a respondent’s odds of having worked in the past year in comparison
with “Black” (OR=.715, se=.009) or “Asian” (OR=.539, se=.012) respondents. Even so,
all four of the racial categories above score lower than white respondents when looking at
32
the odds of employment within the past year. Model 2 looks at predictors of the
number of hours respondents work within a given week. Those with a disability
work over two-and-a-half hours (B=-2.545, se=.054) less than their non-disabled
counterparts when respondent demographics are controlled for, also shown in model 2.
Table 3- Predictors of Employment and Income Regression Results
Dependent
Worked in
past year
# of work
hours per
week
# of weeks
worked in
past year
Total Income
Supplemental
Security
Income
SelfEmployment
Income
.177**
(.007)
-2.545**
(.054)
-5.423**
(.059)
-15716.94**
(126.70)
256.66
(162.29)
-9475.09**
(731.41)
1.008**
(.000)
.188**
(.001)
.258**
(.001)
430.27**
(3.40)
36.71**
(2.41)
474.20**
(18.91)
1.406**
(.002)
.892**
(.009)
.873**
(.009)
8336.83**
(24.90)
414.37**
(20.05)
4850.21**
(119.45)
1.079**
(.006)
1.747**
(.031)
2.492**
(.003)
6557.23**
(88.47)
918.45**
(66.79)
6439.23**
(433.66)
.715**
(.009)
.502**
(.048)
-.913**
(.052)
-3486.63**
(132.27)
-415.73**
(68.54)
-7263.61**
(889.99)
.539**
(.012)
-.646**
(.063)
-.747**
(.068)
-2991.70**
(176.77)
904.39**
(169.60)
2858.30**
(971.03)
.994**
(.001)
.027**
(.005)
.025**
(.005)
-188.630**
(14.29)
-7.35
(11.80)
-115.78
(73.09)
.813**
(.017)
.203*
(.095)
-1.584**
(.103)
-3000.22**
(262.77)
-351.26*
(142.74)
-3565.25*
(1416.90)
2.120**
(.006)
6.138**
(.028)
2.076**
(.030)
17362.49**
(79.16)
857.25**
(56.73)
18513.84**
(407.61)
Independent
Disability
Age
Education
Marital Status
Black
Asian
Hispanic
Other
Male (Sex)
Note: 1. Logistic Regressions bolded 2. The standard error rate is in parenthesis
*p<.05, **p<.01
Men work over 6-hours (B=6.138, se=.028) more per week than women.
Respondents who are married work over one-and-a-half hours more (B=1.747, se=.031)
than those who are not married. Asians work less than whites (B=-.646, se=.063).
33
However, respondents who are black (B=.502, se=.048), Hispanic (B=.027, se=.005) or
“Other” races (B=.203, se.=095) work just slightly more than whites. Model 3, reflects
the number of weeks respondents have worked in the past year; respondents with
disabilities work over five weeks less per year than those without disabilities (B=-5.423,
se=.059). On average, men work two weeks (B=2.076, se=.030) more per year than
women. Respondents who are married work over two weeks (B=2.492, se=.003) more
per year than those who are not. Black (B=-913, se=052), Asian (B=-.747, se=.068), and
“Other” (B=-1.584, se=.103) respondents work less than those who are white.
Model 4, looks at the total income of respondents. Respondents with disabilities
earn close to $16,000 less (B=$-15,716.94, se=$126.70) per year than those without
disabilities when controlling for basic demographic characteristics. Men earn over
$17,000 (B=$17,362.49, se=$79.16) more per year than women. Also, those who have a
higher level of education earn more per year (B=$8,336.83, se=$24.90) than those with
less education. Similarly, those who are married earn more (B=$6,557.23, se=$88.47)
than those who are not married. Black (B=$-3486.63,se=$132.27), Asian (B=$-2991.70,
se=$176.77), Hispanic (B=$-188.63, se=$14.29) and “Other” (B=$3,000.22, se=$262.77)
respondents earn less than white respondents. Model 5 addresses supplemental security
income. It is interesting to note that, while those with disabilities receive more SSI than
those without (B=$256.66 more, se=$162.29), this variable does not prove to be
significant in this model when demographic characteristics are controlled for (Reasons
for this will be addressed later in the discussion portion of this paper). Men receive more
SSI (B=$857.25, se=$56.73) than women and those who are married also receive more
34
SSI (B=$918.45, se=$66.79). Black respondents receive over $400 less (B=$-415.73,
se=$68.54) than white respondents. Being Hispanic is insignificant in this model. Model
6 shows that respondents who have a disability earn over $9,000 less in self-employment
income (B=$-9,475.09, se=$731.09) than those who do not have a disability. Men earn
more in self-employment income (B=$18,513.84, se=$407.61) than women. Also, those
with more education tend to earn more self-employment income (B=$4,850.21,
se=$119.45) than their less-educated counterparts. Married respondents earn over $6,000
more (B=$6,439.23, se=$433.66) per year than those who are not married. Black (B=$7,263.61, se=$889.99) and “Other” (B=$-3,565.25, se=$1,416.90) respondents earn less
self-employment income than white respondents. However, “Other” racial groups are less
significant in this model than “Black” respondents. As in model 5, being Hispanic is not a
significant predictor of self-employment income.
The odds of having any type of disability increase if respondents are male, older
or black. The education and marital status of respondents, while significant, did not prove
to be as much of a positive predictor for respondents having a disability as sex, age, and
race. Respondents with disabilities are at a disadvantage, almost across the board, when
looking at work measures such as the amount of weeks per year and hours per week that
they work. They work over five weeks less per year than their non-disabled counterparts.
Here, we see that people with disabilities are underemployed when compared to their
non-disabled counterparts, as suggested in the authors’ third hypothesis. Table one also
supports the authors’ second hypothesis, being that people with disabilities are less likely
to be employed than those without a disability. As proposed in the authors’ fourth
35
hypothesis, the income of individuals with disabilities is affected negatively when the
demographic characteristics of education, sex, race, and marital status are controlled for.
Men with more education and married respondents reported higher self-employment
income than those with disabilities. Regression analysis also showed that men and
married respondents received more Social Security income than women and those who
were not married. As previously noted, disability did not prove to be a significant
predictor of Social Security income.
36
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to provide a theoretical and empirical look at how
disability impacts employment and income in America in order to highlight the social
barriers that people with disabilities face when it comes to earning a living. The analyses
performed are meant to measure the demographic profile of individuals who have
disabilities and quantify the impact of disability on work experiences and income. This
study finds similar results as previous studies, which have shown that people with
disabilities experience lower employment rates than their non-disabled counterparts
(Mitchell et al. 2006) and therefore experience lower levels of income.
The results in this study are consistent with Mitchell, Adkins and Kemp (2006),
Rabren et al. (2003), Martz and Jade Xu (2008), and Berry (2000) with regard to gender
being a significant predictor of certain types of disability. However, the author’s results
show that being male is a significant demographic predictor, not only for those who have
difficulty remembering, seeing, and hearing, but also for those who claim to have a
disability in general. Sex affects all types of disabilities. Men are more likely to
experience disability in general but specifically report higher rates of disabilities affecting
memory, hearing and seeing. Women report disabilities that affect their ability to work,
go outside of their home, and take care of themselves. They also report more physical
disabilities. Specifically, women are more likely than men to have a disability that affects
their ability to go outside of their home, work, and take care of themselves. Women are
also slightly more likely than men to have a physical disability.
37
Four out of the six disability categories used in the author’s regression analysis
demonstrated that the minority status of women is more often compounded by a disability
that, arguably, has a greater effect on their life trajectory than those disabilities more
often experienced by men (sensory and memory disabilities). An individual that has
difficulty leaving her home or taking care of her-self may find it more difficult to work
and therefore earn money by the nature of the disability. Being a women and having a
disability equals a double minority status that drastically diminishes the opportunity for
gainful employment and higher levels of income. Gender discrimination and ‘disablism’
must be considered together in this circumstance, as Oliver (1996) would agree. The
results of this study point out the importance of not only looking at the type of disability,
but also considering all other demographic factors that may be compounding the issue of
low income and employment rates. One factor cannot be considered in isolation.
It is important to address disability on a larger more general scale, as well as
specific types of disabilities, as much of the previous research discussed in this study
often deals with nuanced populations of disability. In seeing the bigger picture, it is often
easier to address pointed issues with regard to who experiences disability. It is clear in
this study that, while men experience higher rates of disability in general, women
experience types of disability that hinder their ability to interact with society (goingoutside-of-home) and earning a living (work disability). Therefore, programs that deal
with people with disabilities need to be aware of the specific challenges that both men
and women face, as there are differences.
38
Being black or a member of the “other” racial categories proved to be a major
predictor of disability in general as well as throughout the different types of disabilities
studied. Being Asian or Hispanic, while significant, did not prove to be as important
(Asian, the least of the two). Smart and Smart (1997) make a similar claim in that they
state how “Asians[…] have fewer disabilities and report higher educational and
socioeconomic attainment than do other minorities” (6). Additionally, this analysis shows
that Asian respondents’ total income was less than $3000 under whites’, in comparison to
almost $3500 for blacks and $3000 for those of “Other” racial categories.
In chapter two of this study, it was discussed that society labels people in order to
rank and categorize the world in which we live, to make sense of it and create a set of
normalized standards by which to further rank and categorize people (McDermott and
Varene 1995 and Wong 2007). However, society cannot be altogether blind to the basic
differences of those with disabilities and those without. Instead, we must first understand
where people are on this continuum that has been created and then address the needs of
each group. People with disabilities cannot be understood simply based on the fact that
they have a disability. All exacerbating minority factors must be considered in order to
truly address how disability affects income and employment.
The first hypothesis stated that people with disabilities are less likely, than their
non-disabled counterparts, to have worked within the past year. Regression analysis not
only confirms this statement but also confirms a total of five out of the six hypotheses
that the author set out to study. People with disabilities work fewer hours per week and
fewer hours per year than those without disabilities (Hypotheses two and three). People
39
with disabilities work almost five-and-a-half weeks less than their non-disabled
counterparts, when other demographic characteristics are controlled for, but the income
deficit between those with disabilities and every other characteristic controlled for in this
study is astounding. In testing hypothesis four, the author confirms that, indeed, people
with disabilities’ general income are significantly less than their non-disabled
counterparts. A report put out by the U.S. Census Bureau in August of 2007 stated the
median household income in 2006 to be $48,451 (Webster & Bishaw 2007). Considering
the results in this study, people with disabilities earned $15,717 less than their nondisabled counterparts. According to these numbers, people with disabilities earned an
average of $32,484 when all else is controlled for.
Because most people would not earn over $15000 in five weeks, the assumption
can be made that the extra 5.4 work weeks per year advantage that people without
disabilities have over those with disabilities is not sufficient enough to justify the jump in
total yearly income that the non-disabled enjoy. Therefore, there must be another reason
for this deficit. Though this study will not address this topic statistically, it is important to
point out the raw numbers in hopes that they will further Oliver and Marx’s notion that
capitalism focuses on production and this very fact, according to Oliver (1996),
diminishes the potential contributions of those with disabilities. As one researcher put it,
employers may see that “workers with impairments would not perform efficiently under
normal competitive conditions and would thereby raise production costs” (Nagi et al.
1972: 27).
40
Those who have a disability are far less likely to have worked within the past year
than if they possess any other demographic characteristic. While the deficit of hours
worked in a given week or weeks in a given year is not large (2.5 hours and 5 weeks,
respectively) it is important to look at the ramifications when those with disabilities work
less than those without. Working less may mean receiving less benefits that come with
working more hours (i.e. decrease in health benefits and less accrued time off). Working
less may also mean that people with disabilities miss out on opportunities that may arise
during the workday that promote coworker cohesion and closeness. It also may mean that
their work is less valued than those who work more. Since we know from previous
research that businesses often express capitalistic concerns (Peck and Kirkbride), the fact
that those with disabilities are working less than their non-disabled counterparts may
speak to the issue that businesses will offer individuals with disabilities less hours based
on perceived or real ideals of lower production rates.
The two remaining hypotheses tested address two different sources of potential
income for people with disabilities. The author expected to find that people with
disabilities had higher levels of social security income and lower levels of selfemployment income. While the latter was confirmed through regression analysis,
disability did not prove to be a significant predictor of social security income. The reason
why disability is not a significant predictor of SSI may be solely due to the fact that other
demographic characteristics were controlled for. Once a respondent’s demographic
profile is considered, disability ceases to be a necessary variable when predicting whether
the respondent receives SSI. However, more research needs to be conducted in this area.
41
The results in this study are unclear as to disability and its relation to SSI income.
However, due to the fact that people with disabilities are working less and earning less,
they often receive government assistance in the form of SSI benefits (Kennedy and Olney
2006); it is fair to say that more needs to be done with regard to increasing employment
rates and hours for people with disabilities so that their incomes will be increased. The
author, by no means, seeks to negate the challenges that some individuals with
disabilities face with regard to how much they truly can work with the potential
limitations and barriers that they face in life. However, it is up to society to be certain that
it is not the structure that is confining those with disabilities to low socioeconomic status
that often forces them to live in poverty. It is also important to alter not only business and
government policy, but also individual and societal attitudes toward the potential
contributions that those with disabilities can make to individual businesses and our
culture as a whole. In order to do that, however, society must take a critical look at how
we view those who do not fit into the set of ‘normal’ standards that has been put in place.
Society must cease labeling people based on perceived contributions and outward
appearances and behavior, and must be willing to look at differences with appreciation
instead of fear and assumption.
Conclusion
The research discussed throughout this study, as well as the regression analyses
done in the earlier chapter, demonstrates the need to look at disability, not in isolation as
an individual problem, but as a societal issue with exacerbating factors that include
42
gender, race, socioeconomic status, and education, to name a few. The challenges that
people with disabilities face need to be viewed in light of specific demographic profiles
that, in other research, have already proven to be barriers to employment and higher rates
of income. Those with disabilities experience very low levels of income and work less
than their non-disabled counterparts. However, income levels and employment status
decreases, even further, for those who not only have a disability but experience double
minority statuses, such as being black and having a disability. Further research needs to
be conducted that looks at the concept of disablism and how it affects specific groups of
people more than others. Sociology can no longer look at disability as an individual or
medical issue. It must view disability as a social creation in order to gain understanding.
43
REFERENCES
American Community Survey (ACS). 2006. The Data Web. Retrieved September 13,
2009. http://www.thedataweb.org/datasets.html#acs
Barton, Len (Ed.) 1996. Disability & Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. New York:
Longman Publishing
Batavia, Andrew L., Richard L. Beauaurier. 2001. “The Financial Vulnerability of People
with Disabilities: Assessing Poverty Risks.” Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare 28:139-162.
Berry, Hugh G. 2000. “The Supplemental Security Income Program and Employment for
Young Adults with Disabilities.” Focus On Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities 15(3): 176- 181.
Brostrand, H. L. 2006. “Titling at Windmills: Changing Attitudes Toward People with
Disabilities.” Journal of Rehabilitation 72: 4-9.
Bryen, Diane Nelson, Blyden B. Potts and Allison C. Carey. 2007. “So You Want to
Work? What Employers Say about Job Skills, Recruitment and Hiring
Employees Who Rely on AAC.” Augmentative and Alternative Communication
23: 126-139.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2009. Retrieved July 7th, 2011. http://www.bls.gov/cps/
Burkhauser, Richard V. 2004. “The decline in the employment rate for people with
disabilities: Bad data, bad health, or bad policy?” Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation 20: 185- 201.
Davis Walls: Professor Emeritus of Sociology Sonoma State University. 2008.
44
“Disability Rights Movement” Retrieved Oct. 18, 2008.
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/disability-movement.shtml
Design and Methodology: American Community Survey. 2009. Chapters 2 thru 4.
Gillbride, Dennis, Jennifer Coughlin, Jamie S Mitus and Virginia Scott. 2007. “The
Collaboration for Employment Success: Collaboration as a Strategy to Optimize
Employment Outcomes for People with Disabilities.” Journal of Rehabilitation
73: 45- 55.
Green, Howard J. and Valerie Brooke. 2001. “Recruiting and retaining the best from
America’s largest untapped talent pool.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
16: 83-88.
Hergenrather, Kenneth C., Andrew P. Turner, Scott D. Rhodes and Julie Barlow. 2008.
“Persons with Disabilities and Employment: Application of the Self- efficacy of
Job Seeking Skills Scale.” Journal of Rehabilitation 74: 34-44.
Hotchkiss, Julie L. 2003. “A Closer Look at the Employment Impact of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.” The Journal of Human Resources 39: 887-910.
Kennedy, Jae and Marjorie F. Olney. 2006. “Factors Associated with Workforce
Participation among SSDI Beneficiaries.” Journal of Rehabilitation 72: 24- 30.
Levitan, Sar A. ad Robert Taggart. 1977. “Employment problems of dabbled person.”
Monthly Labor Review May 1977, pp. 3- 13.
Loprest, Pamela and Elaine Maag. 2007. “The relationship between early disability onset
and education and employment.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26: 49-62.
45
Mank, David, Andrea Cioffi and Paul Yovanoff. 1998. “Employment Outcomes for
People With Severe Disabilities: Opportunities for Improvement.” Mental
Retardation 36.
Martz, Erin and Yonghong Jade Xu. 2008. “Person-related and service-related factors
predicting employment of individuals with disabilities.” Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation 28: 97- 104.
McDermott, Ray and Herve Varenne. 1995. “Culture “as” Disability.” Anthropology &
Education Quarterly 26: 324-348.
Migliore, Alberto, David Mank, Teresa Grossi and Patricia Rogan. 2006. “Integrated
employment or sheltered workshops: Preferences of adults with intellectual
disabilities, their families, and staff.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 26:519.
M., Rodney H. Adkins and Bryan J. Kemp. 2006. “The Effects of Aging on Employment
of People With and Without Disabilities.” Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 49
(3): 157-165.
Nagi, Saad Z., William H. McBroom and John Collette. 1972. “Work, Employment and
the Disabled.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 31 (1): 21- 34.
Nary, Dorothy E., Glen W. White, James F. Budde and Hoang Yen Vo. 2004.
“Identifying the employment and vocational rehabilitation concerns of people
with traditional and emerging disabilities.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
20:71- 77.
46
National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD). 2008. “Who
We Are” Alexandria, VA: National Association of Councils on Developmental
Disabilities, Retrieved Oct. 18, 2008
http://www.nacdd.org/pages/who_we_are.htm
Olsen, Henry and Jon Flugstad. 2009. “The Forgotten Entitlements.” Policy Review 153:
41- 54.
Olsson, M. B. and C. P. Hwang. 2006. “Well-being, involvement in paid work and
division of child-care in parents of children with intellectual disabilities in
Sweden.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 30: 963-969.
Peck, Bob and Lynn Trew Kirkbride. 2001. “Why businesses don’t employ people with
disabilities.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 16: 71-75.
Petty, Debra Martin and Elizabeth M. Fussell. 1997. “Employer attitudes and satisfaction
with supported employment.” Focus on Autism & Other Developmental
Disabilities 12.
Rabren, Karen, George Hall and Clarence Brown. 2003. “Employment of transition-age
rehabilitation consumers: Demographic and programmatic factors.” Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation 18:145- 152.
Randolph, Diane Smith and Elena M. Anderson. 2004. “Disability, gender, and
unemployment relationships in the United States from the behavioral risk factor
surveillance system.” Disability and Society 19: 403-414.
Rioux, Marcia H., Cameron Crawford and Jane Anweiler. 2001. “Undue Hardship and
Reasonable Accommodation: The View From the Court.” Policy Studies Journal
47
29: 641-648.
Smith, Diane L. and Reginald J. Alston. 2009. “The Relationship of Race and Disability
to Life Satisfaction in the United States.” Journal of Rehabilitation 75 (1): 3- 9.
Webster, Bruce H Jr. & Alemayehu Bishaw. “Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data the
2006 American Community Survey.” American Community Survey Reports.
August from 2007.
Wehmeyer, Michael L., Susan B. Palmer, Sean J. Smith, Wendy Parent, Daniel K. Davies
and Steven Stock. 2006. “Technology use by people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities to support employment activities: A single-subject
design meta analysis.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 24: 81- 86.
Wong, Sophia Isako. 2007. “The Moral Personhood of Individuals Labeled “Mentally
Retarded”: A Rawlsian Response to Nussbaum.” Social Theory and Practice 33:
579-594.