The estimates provided on this website are based on analyses of three different data sources: the American Community Survey (ACS), Current Population Survey (CPS), and Census 2000. Each data source has different strengths and use different questions to identify disability. The data source you should use depends on the type of information you are interested in.
Generally if you are looking for:
The most detailed and up to date estimates:
Trends over time:
Data on smaller sub-state areas:
If you can’t find what you are looking for, please go to our Help Page to contact our researchers who may be able to help.
The 2008 ACS questions on disability are both a conceptual and empirical break from the previous ACS disability questions. The Census Bureau’s American Community 2006 content test found that the new set of six disability questions had equal or better reliability and higher response rates than the previous ACS question set. These changes made to the disability questions mean that the population identified in 2008 is different from that identified in previous years and the results should not be compared.
For a summary of all changes to the ACS 2008 survey see: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/SummaryResultsACS2006ContentTest.pdf
Below are the disability questions used in the ACS 2003-7 and those used in the ACS 2008, with descriptions of the major differences between the questions with similar concepts.
ACS 2003-7:
ACS 2008: Question dropped
ACS 2003-07
ACS 2008:
Major differences:
ACS 2003-7:
ACS 2008:
Major differences:
ACS 2003-7:
ACS 2008:
Major differences:
ACS 2003-7:
ACS 2008:
Major differences:
ACS 2003-7:
ACS 2008:
Major differences:
The Annual Disability Status Reports provide policy makers, disability advocates, reporters, and the public with a summary of the most recent demographic and economic statistics on the non-institutionalized population with disabilities. They contain information on the population size and disability prevalence for various demographic subpopulations, as well as statistics related to employment, earnings, and household income. Comparisons are made to people without disabilities and across disability types. Disability Status Reports and other statistics are available for each state, DC, and Puerto Rico at www.DisabilityStatistics.org.
The Status Reports primarily look at the working-age population because the employment gap between people with and without disabilities is a major focus of government programs and advocacy efforts. Furthermore, employment is a key factor in the social integration and economic self-sufficiency of working-age people with disabilities. In the future we will add health-related statistics.
The estimates in the 2008 Disability Status Report are based on American Community Survey (ACS) data, a U.S. Census Bureau survey designed to replace the decennial census long form. See the ACS user Guide on www.disabilitystatistics.org for additional information on the ACS. See the ACS User Guide for additional disability-related information in the ACS. A Census Bureau report, www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/advance_copy_user_guide.pdf, provides a broader discussion of the ACS.
Download the 2008 Disability Status Reports from the home page
Weathers, R., R. (2005, May). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the American Community Survey. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/123
Burkhauser, R. V., & Houtenville, A. J. (2006, September). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the Current Population Survey - Annual Social and Economic Supplement (March CPS). Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1233/
Erickson, William A. & Houtenville, Andrew J. (2005, November). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the 2000 Decennial Census. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/187/
Harris, B.H., Hendershot, G., & Stapleton, D.C. (2005, October). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the National Health Interview Survey. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/186/
Maag, Elaine. (2006, April). A Guide to Disability Statistics from National Health Interview Survey – Disability Supplement. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1206/
Burkhauser, R.V., Weathers, R., & Schroeder, M. (2006, May). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1207/
Wittenburg, David & Nelson, Sandi (2006, February). A Guide to Disability Statistics from the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1195/
There is no single, universally accepted definition of disability. Mashaw and Reno (1996) document over 20 definitions of disability used for purposes of entitlement to public or private income support programs, government services, or statistical analysis. An explicit goal of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Healthy People 2010 (HP2010) program is to include a standardized set of questions that identify people with disabilities in HP2010 surveillance instruments.
The most frequently applied framework of disability comes from Nagi (1969). This conceptualization views disability as difficulty performing socially expected activities such as work for pay, and explicitly recognizes the interaction of the environment and pathologies/impairments to cause disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rests upon the Nagi framework and recognizes that improvements in the environment (access to public transportation, workplace accommodations, etc.) can reduce disability and thus improve the inclusion of all people.
In Nagi's framework, the dynamic nature of the disability process is represented by the movement through four stages: pathology, impairment, functional limitation, and disability. The first stage, pathology, is the presence of a physical or mental condition, such as tinnitus, that interrupts the physical or mental process of the human body. Pathology may lead to the second stage, impairment, which Nagi defined as a physiological, anatomical, or mental loss that limits a person's capacity to function; for example, tinnitus limits the ability to hear sound- causing a hearing impairment. Impairment may lead to the third stage, functional limitation, which Nagi defines as a limitation in the performance or completion of a fundamental activity. For example, a person with hearing impairment may be limited in holding a telephone conversation. In the final stage, a functional limitation may lead to a disability, which is a limitation in performing roles and tasks that are socially expected. For example, a person limited in holding a telephone conversation may be limited in being employed-a work disability or work limitation.
As implied above, the connections between stages in this process are not inevitable, but these connections are related to other personal characteristics and physical and social environmental factors. These factors can be addressed via access to vocational rehabilitation services, universal design, assistive technology, personal assistance services, etc. For example, a person with a severe hearing impairment can be accommodated in the workplace with a TTY machine, such that there is no functional limitation or subsequent work disability.
The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) classification system is conceptually similar to the Nagi framework. The key to both these approaches is the recognition that individuals move from the presence of a health condition to a point at which the condition begins to impinge on activities that are socially expected of them, and that this movement is related to the environment in which individuals live. The table below provides an adaptation of a diagram from Jette and Badley (2000), who provide an excellent comparison of the two conceptualizations.
The incorporation of the measurements of disability process within surveys and administrative records is a very difficult task and there is no consensus as to the best approach. Developing such a consensus among government agencies is a goal of the Center for Disease Control's HealthyPeople 2010 benchmarking system and the efforts of the Interagency Subcommittee on Disability Statistics. An example of the benefits of interagency connections is the use of the Census2000 Long Form/American Community Survey (ACS) disability-related questions by a recent Department of Transportation (DOT) survey on transportation barriers for people with disabilities. This allows the DOT to draw inferences between their survey and the Census2000 and the ACS.
In the meantime, existing data sources are being collected using a variety of measures, which can be associated with various stages in the Nagi framework. The most common measure relates to work limitation. Although worded differently, work limitation-based questions appear in the Census2000, American Community Survey (ACS), Current Population Survey (CPS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS). Questions about limitations in other activities appear in all these surveys, except the CPS. Questions relating to limitation in fundamental activities appear in the Census2000, ACS, NHIS, MEPS, SIPP and HRS. Broad questions about impairment appear in the Census2000 and ACS. Questions about select sets of specific pathologies and impairments appear in the NHIS, MEPS and HRS.
All Current Population Survey Annual Demographic Supplement (CPS) statistics found on www.disabilitystatistics.org, are based on a work limitation-based definition of disability. The disability measure for work limitation in the CPS is based on the question "[d]oes anyone in this household have a health problem or disability which prevents them from working or which limits the kind or amount of work they can do? [If so,] who is that? (Anyone else?)"
The CPS question above was designed as a lead-in question to questions regarding sources of disability-related incomes. A criticism of this work limitation question is that it was not cognitively tested when it was developed, as was the case for most survey questions at that time. (See Hale 2001). However, Burkhauser, Daly, Houtenville and Nargis (2002) show that time-trends in the employment of people with disabilities, as measured in the CPS using a work limitation-based definition, are not statistically different from time-trends in the employment of people with disabilities as measured in the NHIS using a work limitation-based definition or impairment-based definition to identify the population with disabilities. A more detailed discussion of this and other issues relating to the measurement of the employment outcomes of people with disabilities is provided by Burkhauser, Houtenville and Wittenburg (2003).
Census 2000 used a functional limitation definition of disability. Six questions on the 2000 Census Long Form collected information on disability, including employment, and can be used to identify the total population with disabilities. However, there are some issues with the Census 2000 disability results regarding (17c) Go-Outside-Home Disability, and (17d) Employment Disability. (Go to the Key Issue on the Census 2000 Enumerator Issue)
The Census 2000 disability-related questions are as follows:
16. Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: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:
- Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment?
- A condition that substantially limits one of more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?
- Learning, remembering, or concentrating?
- Dressing, bathing, or getting around the home?
- (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?
- (Answer if this person is 16 years old or over.) Working at a job or business?
People answering "yes" to at least one of these questions are considered to have a disability. These questions are also used to define six specific sub-populations of disability: (16a) Sensory Disability, (16b) Physical Disability, (17a) Mental Disability, (17b) Self-Care Disability, (17c) Go-Outside-Home Disability, and (17d) Employment Disability.
Given that there is no universally accepted definition of disability, it is important to document fully and to justify the definitions that you use, caveats, and the sources. If necessary, report the results for multiple measures and discuss the differences. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact us through our Technical Assistance form.
According to the Census Bureau estimates from the ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) file are expected to differ slightly from the ACS summary tables produced by the Census Bureau because they are subject to additional sampling error and further data processing operations. (See www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/2005/AccuracyPUMS.pdf).
Minor discrepancies may be due to one or more of the following reasons:
Sampling error
Census Bureau confidentiality edits to the Microdata file
Population "universe" differences
Answer: There are several reasons for differences in reported numbers or percentages of people with disabilities, including different definitions of disability, changes in the disability questions used over time, different data sources, different year or times of the year, different age groups, and different base populations (i.e., civilians only, institutionalized population). Go to the definition of disability, Data Source for the measures used in the different surveys, or the Glossary of this website to find a specific definition.
There is often confusion between the employment rate and unemployment rate. This confusion is understandable. The employment rate is the percentage of all persons who have a job:
| Employment Rate = | (Number of persons who have a job) | × 100 |
| (Number of persons) |
The unemployment rate is the percentage of persons in the labor force who do not have a job:
| Unemployment Rate = | (Number of persons who do not have a job but are actively looking for work) | × 100, |
| (Number of persons in the labor force) |
where the labor force includes people who have a job, are on layoff, or who actively searched for work in the last four weeks. Notice that all persons are used in the calculation of the employment rate, while only persons in the labor force are used in the calculation of the unemployment rates; i.e. the base populations of the two measures are different.
Consider the following questions. Should a full-time college student who does not hold a job be considered unemployed? Should a full-time retiree be considered unemployed? Neither is working in the labor market and both are considered to be out of the labor force, unless they are actively searching for a job. The inset boxes below contain the definitions used by the Census Bureau when disseminating statistics from the 2000 Decennial Census and definition used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Monthly Current Population Survey.
Journalists, researchers and government officials typically refer to the unemployment rate when describing the state of the economy. The unemployment rate is a measure of the tightness of the labor market; i.e., how hard it is to find a job. In contrast, researchers and government agencies often report the employment rate when describing economic disparities between two groups, such as people with and without disabilities. The unemployment rate may under-represent economic disparities between people with and without disabilities, because people with disabilities may be less likely to be in the labor force, especially those participating in government-sponsored training programs and disability-related Social Security programs.
These two measures often are used in concert to make the point that the overall economy is doing well but employment participation of people with disabilities is lagging behind. For instance, the following statement is correct but misleading, “[t]he unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.5 percent. But a recent survey suggests that only around 30 percent of people with disabilities are employed.” Similar statements have been made by officials and researchers, and have appeared in the media. From such a statement, it would be tempting to erroneously assume that the unemployment rate of people with disabilities is 70 percent (i.e., 100 percent minus 30 percent). This is not the case:
| Number of persons who do not have a job but are actively looking for work |
× 100 | ≠ 100 – | Number of persons who have a job | × 100 |
| Number of persons in the labor force | Number of persons | |||
| Unemployment Rate | Employment Rate | |||
Indeed, the employment rate of people with disabilities has hovered around 30 percent over the last two decades, and it is often incorrectly stated that the unemployment rate of people with disabilities is 70 percent. Earliest references to such a figure date back to the 1980s.
To further illustrate this issue, it is helpful to look at some actual numbers, which are provided in Table 1. Based on information from the 2002 Current Population Survey, an estimated 2,809,000 out of the 13,474,000 non-institutionalized civilians aged 18-64 who report a work-limiting health problem or disability are employed. This translates into an employment rate of 20.8 percent. Similarly, an estimated 3,269,000 out of the 13,474,000 non-institutionalized civilians aged 18-64 who report a work limiting health problem or disability are in the labor force (i.e., 24.3 percent of all persons in the labor forces). Of these 3,269,000 persons in the labor force, 460,000 persons are not employed (on layoff or actively searching for work in the last four weeks). This translates into an unemployment rate of 14.1 percent for non-institutionalized civilians aged 18-64 who report a work limiting health problem or disability. This is quite different from the often-cited unemployment rate of 70 percent for people with disabilities. Of course, it is nearly three times larger than the unemployment rate of non-institutionalized civilians aged 18-64 who do not report a work limiting health problem or disability, which is 5.8 percent.
The crux of the issue is what to do with people who are not working but would rather be working, but are not actively searching for work. The traditional definition of the unemployment rate is not well-suited to identify the economic participation of people with disabilities. The main source of the confusion is the comparison of the historically low unemployment rate in the overall economy to the employment rate for people with disabilities.
A detailed discussion of this and other issues relating to the measurement of the outcomes of people with disabilities is provided by Burkhauser, Houtenville, and Wittenburg (2003).
Employed includes all civilians 16 years old and over who were either (1) "at work"-- those who did any work at all during the reference week as paid employees, worked in their own business or profession, worked on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a family farm or in a family business; or (2) were "with a job but not at work" -- those who did not work during the reference week but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent due to illness, bad weather, industrial dispute, vacation, or other personal reasons. Excluded from the employed are people whose only activity consisted of work around the house or unpaid volunteer work for religious, charitable, and similar organizations; also excluded are people on active duty in the United States Armed Forces. The reference week is the calendar week preceding the date on which the respondents completed their questionnaires or were interviewed. This week may not be the same for all respondents.
Unemployed PersonsAll civilians 16 years old and over are classified as unemployed if they (1) were neither "at work" nor "with a job but not at work" during the reference week, and (2) were actively looking for work during the last 4 weeks, and (3) were available to accept a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off, and were available for work except for temporary illness.
Persons 16 years and over in the civilian non-institutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees, worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family, and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations.
Unemployed PersonsPersons 16 years and over who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.
| Persons who report a work-limiting health problem or disability | Persons who do not report a work-limiting health problem or disability | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measure | Rate | Number of Persons (numerator) | Base population (denominator) | Rate | Number of Persons (numerator) | Base population (denominator) |
| Employment | 20.7 | 2,809,000 | 13,474,000 | 78.0 | 125,845,000 | 161,422,000 |
| Labor force participation | 24.3 | 3,269,000 | 13,474,000 | 82.8 | 133,641,000 | 161,422,000 |
| Unemployment | 14.1 | 460,000 | 3,269,000 | 5.8 | 7,797,000 | 133,641,000 |
Answer: The 2000 Census Long-Form contains six questions related to type of disability. The Census Bureau provides a variety of statistics for these populations—population size, prevalence rates, employment rates, and poverty rates. However, there are serious problems with some Census 2000 disability results. These issues also occurred in the 2000-2002 American Community Survey that utilized the Census 2000 long form survey instrument.
The six disability-related questions asked on Census 2000 Long-Form were
16. Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions:
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:
The Census Bureau uses the questions above to define six disability sub-populations: (16a) sensory disability, (16b) physical disability, (17a) mental disability, (17b) self-care disability, (17c) go-outside-home disability, and (17d) employment disability. Persons answering "yes" to at least one of these questions are considered to have a disability.
Preliminary analysis by the Census Bureau (Stern, 2003) found a difference in the responses to the last two questions (17c and 17d) between people who mailed in the long-form and those who were interviewed in person. This difference is likely due to a design problem with the interview form. During an oral interview, questions 17c and 17d were not explicitly connected with the lead statement “because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition does this person have difficulty in doing any of the following activities?” Therefore some respondents may have reported being able to go outside and able to work at a job or business, as opposed to having difficulty doing so.
As mentioned previously, the 2000-2002 American Community Survey (ACS) utilized the same disability questions as the Census 2000. In 2003 the Census Bureau slightly modified the disability questions in ACS survey by repeating the lead-in question prior to the go-outside the home and employment disability questions. Analysis of the 2003 ACS data (Stern and Brault, 2005) found a decrease in the employment and go-outside-home disability prevalence rates for both enumerated and mailback survey data. This result suggested that the problem of respondents misunderstanding/misanswering those two disability questions was not limited to only the in-person interviews but also affected the Census 2000 and ACS 2000-2002 mail-back survey data.
The implications of this design problem for the Census 2000 and ACS 2000-2002 survey results are as follows: (1) the go-outside-home disability and employment disability population estimates are likely to be higher than they would otherwise have been, (2) the overall estimate of the population with disabilities is likely to be higher than it would otherwise have been, and (3) the overall estimate of the employment rate of people with disabilities is likely to be higher than it would have been without the design problem, because the population with disabilities includes working people without disabilities.
The problem only affects calculations of general disability and the two questions noted. Sensory, physical, mental and self-care disability calculations are unaffected. In addition, the design problem does not have an impact on those under the age of 16 since these two questions did not apply to those under 16.
In response to this error, we are only reporting statistics that utilize information from the first four questions. Census Bureau has posted new national- and state-level statistics (but not local-level statistics) for the population that reports physical disability, sensory disability, mental disability, and/or self-care disability. (Go to http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t32.html)
The Census Bureau issued official comments on enumerator issue. Go to page vi and pages 35-36 of the following document: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/Report09.pdf.
References:
Stern, S. (2003). Counting People With Disabilities: How Survey Methodology Influences Estimates in Census 2000 And The Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Census Bureau Staff Research Report. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty and Health Statistics Branch. Retrieved April 19, 2005 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/finalstern.pdf
Stern, S., & Brault, M. (2005, January 28). Disability Data from the American Community Survey: A Brief Examination of the Effects of a Question Redesign in 2003. Census Bureau Staff Research Report. Washington DC:U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Retrieved April 19, 2005 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/ACS_disability.pdf
Answer: The Census Bureau has many disability-related tables available on their website. However, many of these tables include an error, which affects both the overall disability numbers and the "go-outside disability" and "employment disability" categories. This error does not affect the statistics posted on DisabilityStatistics.org. Go to the Frequently Asked Questions: What is the Census 2000 disability measurement issue? section for a broad discussion of this error.
To access the Census 2000 disability-related summary tables from the Census Bureau:
Answer: The estimate of 54 million is from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. The following report describes the method used to construct this estimate:
McNeil, J. (2001). Americans with disabilities. Current Population Reports: Household studies, no. 1997. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-73.pdf>
The following is what that the McNeil (2001) report used to determine disability from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. The report used a variety of different angles to try to get at disability that is quite different from the disability determination used in the Current Population Survey and the Decennial Census 2000.
Definitions of disability status, functional limitations, activities of daily living (ADLs), and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) Individuals 15 years old and over were identified as having a disability if they met any of the following criteria:
Individuals were considered to have a severe disability if they met criteria 1, 6, or 9; or had Alzheimers disease, or mental retardation or another developmental disability; or were unable to perform or needed help to perform one or more of the activities in criteria 2, 3, 4, 7, or 8. The disability questions that were asked as part of the SIPP wave 5 Topical Module can be found at the following Web site: http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/top_mod/1996/quests/folder.htm.
Burkhauser, R.V., Houtenville, A.J., & Wittenburg, D. (In press). A user guide to current statistics on the employment of people with disabilities. In R. V. Burkhauser & D. Stapleton (Eds.), The decline in the employment of people with disabilities: A policy puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Burkhauser, R. V., Daly, M. C., Houtenville, A. J., & Nargis, N. (2002). Self-reported work limitation data: What they can and cannot tell us. Demography, 39(3), 541-555.
Hale, T. W. (2001). The lack of a disability measure in today's Current Population Survey. Monthly Labor Review, 124(6), 38.
Jette, A. M., & Badley, E. (2000). Conceptual issues in the measurement of work disability. In N. Mathiowetz & G. S. Wunderlich (Eds.), Survey measurement of work disability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mashaw, J., & Reno, V.P. (Eds.) (1996). Balancing security and opportunity: The challenge of disability income policy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance.
Nagi, S. Z. (1969). Disability and Rehabilitation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Stern, S. (2003). Counting People With Disabilities: How Survey Methodology Influences Estimates in Census 2000 And The Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Census Bureau Staff Research Report. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty and Health Statistics Branch. Retrieved April 19, 2005 from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS/finalstern.pdf
Stern, S., & Brault, M. (2005, January 28). Disability Data from the American Community Survey: A Brief Examination of the Effects of a Question Redesign in 2003. Census Bureau Staff Research Report. Washington DC:U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Retrieved April 19, 2005 from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/ACS_disability.pdf