This appendix is intended to provide more information about the methods used to conduct the focus groups for this study and the characteristics of those who participated in the focus groups. The first section addresses the focus group methodology, and the second section provides information on the focus group participants' characteristics.
The focus groups are the primary component of the study, and are designed to generate rich data about the employment experiences of working people with significant disabilities. The focus group protocol was designed to identify and recruit persons with disabilities that began early in life, who are successfully employed, and who represent persons with different types of impairments. The focus groups solicited qualitative information about the supports that contributed to work success utilized during three distinct periods: during childhood; at the time the individual was seeking his/her first post-school job; and at present. The effort is exploratory in nature, and intended to identify the range of supports that are most instrumental to participants' success, supports that would have been helpful had they been available, and difficulties individuals experienced accessing or utilizing specific supports. Below, we describe the methodology used to select the sites and conduct the focus groups.
We conducted focus groups with people with disabilities at a single locality in each of three states. Because there is considerable variation across states in the nature and availability of policies and resources promoting the employment of people with disabilities, we focused the project's resources on only three sites so that they might be studied more in-depth.
Replication is another important reason to conduct the study in three sites, rather than one. While some findings will vary across the sites, we expect many findings to be similar and, therefore, more likely to be common to the experiences of workers with disabilities all over the country. Even though three sites cannot be nationally representative in a meaningful sense, the fact that some findings are replicated in the three diverse sites we have selected will give them more weight.
We selected three states with interesting features relevant to the purpose of our study. After selecting the states, our primary criteria for selecting the locality within each state was population size. We wanted to conduct the study in the localities with the largest populations, both to make it easier to recruit participants who meet the study criteria, and to broaden the potential range of supports that could be studied.
The criteria we considered in selecting the study states include:
states with relatively high rates of employment among SSI recipients and high rates of participation in SSI work incentive programs (Section 1619, Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS), and Impairment-Related Work Expenses (IRWE));
states with an expressed interest in implementing the 1997 Balanced Budget Act provisions that allow Medicaid buy-in for people with disabilities with incomes up to 250% of the federal poverty level;1
states with 1115 demonstrations that were likely to affect the employment of people with disabilities by making Medicaid coverage more accessible or providing specific services that might affect the ability of people with disabilities to work;
states with TANF policies that limit or do not allow exemptions from work requirements for people with disabilities;
states with special initiatives or particularly innovative programs designed to promote the employment of people with disabilities; and
states and localities not currently being studied for related purposes by other large-scale projects (e.g., the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research [NIDRR] Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers [RRTCs] on employment of people with disabilities, the Rehabilitation Services Administration [RSA] and SSA systems change demonstrations).
In considering which states to select, we also put some weight on the presence of contacts that Lewin/BPA have in specific states. This is important given the effort necessary to identify and recruit persons meeting our study criteria. If the information were available, we would have chosen states that have a high rate of employment among persons with significant disabilities. However, state-level estimates of employment rates among persons with disabilities were not available. We therefore relied on the criteria described above, which we believe to be indicators of supports and resources that promote employment among people with disabilities.
Based on the above criteria, we selected California, New Jersey, and Washington as the three states for the study. The characteristics of these states that led to their inclusion in the study are as follows (at the time of selection):
California: California is a large state with a wide range of disability and employment programs and supports, including an SSA systems change demonstration, and multiple RSA demonstrations, DOL initiatives, and Welfare-to-Work projects that address the issue of employment of people with disabilities. California also has: a relatively high percentage of residents participating in the SSI program, offers a generous state SSI supplement, and will implement a 4733 Medicaid waiver with its systems change project. California was selected primarily because of size, availability of resources, and the extensive contacts BPA has in the state, which facilitated the conduct of the study.
New Jersey: New Jersey has a Medicaid 1115 waiver (implemented in February 1998) that provides coverage to people with incomes up to 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and up to 300 percent of FPL on a sliding-scale basis. The state also has a federal PAS demonstration that allows the use of PAS at work, and has DOL and Welfare-to-Work demonstrations. Use of Section 1619(b) among working SSI recipients is average, and individuals with disabilities are exempted from TANF work requirements only temporarily. The state has no RSA or SSA systems change demonstration.
Washington: Washington State has the second highest percentage of working SSI recipients using 1619(a), is among the highest for 1619(b) use, and has the second highest state SSI supplement. In addition, Washington has the following features: a DOL disability initiative; a Welfare-to-Work project; an RSA client choice demonstration; and no exemptions for people with disabilities from TANF work requirements. Washington was also recommended by several Technical Advisory Group (TAG) members because of the state's interest in disability and employment issues and the presence of private initiatives. Washington does not have an RSA or SSA systems change grant.
We conducted the focus group activities in the major metropolitan areas of each state. Most of the programs serving people with disabilities we identified are located in the major metropolitan areas of each state, and the greatest concentration of working persons with disabilities meeting our study guidelines were likely to be found in the major metropolitan areas. Of the states selected: Los Angeles represents the largest metropolitan area in California2; Newark is the largest metropolitan area in New Jersey; and Seattle represents the largest metropolitan area in Washington.
In recruiting individuals for participation in the focus groups, we attempted to select individuals who met the following criteria:
Age 18 or over;
Have a "significant" disability, where "significant," at a conceptual level, is defined as a level of disability that would, in the absence of work, qualify the individual for SSI or DI benefits;
Experienced the onset of their impairment or health condition prior to engaging in significant labor force participation; and
Are competitively employed and have worked for at least one year with earnings in excess of $8,240.3
We chose to focus on people with disabilities whose impairment began relatively early in life because current public policy attention has been captured by the rapid growth in the number of younger people coming on to the SSI and DI rolls, and to the issues faced by children with disabilities and their transitions from school to work. Public policy has also been focused on the work requirements of state TANF programs, which primarily serve relatively young adults with children, many of whom have significant impairments or health conditions.
We thought it important to reduce the breadth of issues addressed in this study in favor of greater depth. The range of issues affecting people who become disabled later in life, and who may have a long and established work history, are very different from the issues faced by people who develop disabilities either in childhood, or early in their adult life. Rather than attempt to address both types of individuals, we restricted our focus to the issues affecting those who develop disabilities early in life (i.e., before the first significant employment experience).
Focus group participants were recruited through several means: local programs serving people with disabilities advertised the study and, in some cases, directly recruited individuals; solicitation letters were mailed to working DI and SSI recipients residing in the study sites and identified via Social Security administrative data; and general advertisements were placed in local newspapers, disability newsletters, and internet listserves. The solicitation materials requested that individuals call the study 800 number to be screened for participation in the study. The solicitation materials described the nature of the study and indicated that those selected to participate in a focus group would receive reimbursement for transportation expenses and a gift, equal to $25 in value, for their participation in the study.
Those who called the 800 number were administered a brief screening questionnaire (Attachment A-1) which probed on eligibility criteria, including age, age of onset, earnings, disability and health status, and employment history. Disability severity was evaluated via a two-step process.4
First, we collected information on the underlying condition(s) associated with the disability. We developed for the questionnaire a one-page listing of conditions, the presence of which would constitute a severe disability. This listing was based upon the list employed by the Social Security Administration for disability determination, and included the most common conditions across five domains: cognitive, communication, mental illness, mobility, and other chronic illnesses. Examples of these conditions include mental retardation; deafness and blindness; paralysis and osteomylitis; major depression and bipolar disorder; and HIV and kidney disease.
Second, for individuals with conditions not on the list, we assessed the extent to which the individual experienced one or more functional impairments in mobility (upper and lower body), social functioning and ability to care for self. Any individual reporting having "A lot" of difficulty performing two or more activities, or any individual reporting being "Unable to do" any one (or more) activity was considered to have a severe disability.5 Individuals who failed to meet any of the criteria were screened out. Those meeting the study participation criteria were scheduled for a focus group.
In forming focus groups, we made an effort to construct groups by impairment (i.e., cognitive, communication, mental illness, mobility and other chronic illness) on the assumption that variability in support use and other important characteristics would decrease with impairment homogeneity, and encourage in-depth discussions of shared experiences. Scheduling difficulties prevented us from achieving high rates of homogeneity among focus groups, although the groups were as homogenous as could be achieved under the circumstances. Because of the special communication limitations associated with individuals with cognitive disabilities, we did not form any mixed disability groups that included individuals with cognitive impairments. Each group was made up of six to ten participants.
At the beginning of each focus group, participants were asked to complete a registration form (Attachment A-2), which collected additional demographic and employment history information. Participants were asked about current employment (job title, industry, and schedule of employment), household income from all sources, number of adults and children in household, and reasons for employment interruptions. Participants were also asked to rank the importance of various supports in helping secure employment.
The focus groups sessions were approximately 2.5 hours in length. The discussion concentrated on the supports that members received and/or used that contributed to their ability to work in the competitive labor market. The moderator emphasized that supports could be defined very broadly, to include anything that has helped participants get and keep a job.
During each focus group session, we addressed three key topics:
Supports that participants used when their disabilities first occurred (or during childhood, if individuals became disabled at an early age). We were mainly interested in the supports that contributed to participants' ability to obtain competitive employment as an adult;
Supports that were instrumental in participants finding their first job and starting work; and
Supports that participants currently use to continue working.
The moderator encouraged participants to consider how the expectations of family, friends, and other key persons in their lives affected their employment choices. The moderator also reminded participants to consider which, of all types of supports they had used, are/were most important to their employment, including those not traditionally thought of as supports, and those not targeted toward individuals with disabilities. The focus group discussion guide is presented as Attachment A-3.
Of the 575 individuals who responded to the study's solicitation efforts, 214 individuals were screened out of the study. The most prevalent reasons for screening out were unemployment, insufficient earnings, disability onset after first work experience, lack of a significant disability, or residence out of the catchment area. The majority of the Newark respondents who screened out were disqualified because they were not currently employed. In Seattle/Tacoma and Los Angeles, however, the majority of the respondents who screened out were disqualified because of insufficient earnings.
A total of 284 individuals participated in approximately 45 focus groups and about two dozen individual interviews across the three sites (104 in Los Angeles, 72 in Newark, and 108 in Seattle/Tacoma).6 Below we summarize the characteristics of focus group participants by site, and by impairment category. Cross-site variation in characteristics reflects variation in the populations living in the sites, but might also reflect variation in the recruitment process. We cannot assume that each sites sample is representative of the population in the site that meets the screening criteria.
We intended to construct focus group so that distribution by impairment within the focus groups reflected approximately the distribution of impairments of the underlying population. However, the distribution of impairments within the pool of eligible participants made this impossible. Exhibit 1 summarizes the distribution of impairments among focus group participants compared to the distribution of impairments in the underlying population.
| Exhibit 1. Distribution of Impairments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impairment | United States1 | Focus Groups | ||
| Number | Percent | Number | Percent | |
| Cognitive | 449,000 | 2.4 | 49 | 17.3 |
| Communication | 508,000 | 2.7 | 60 | 21.1 |
| Mental Illness | 925,000 | 4.9 | 54 | 19.0 |
| Mobility | 8,269,000 | 44.2 | 91 | 32.0 |
| Other Chronic Illness | 8,577,000 | 45.8 | 23 | 8.1 |
| Not Identified | 0 | 0.0 | 7 | 2.5 |
| All Conditions | 18,728,000 | 100.0 | 284 | 100.0 |
|
||||
In Exhibit 2, we summarize the characteristics of participants overall, and by site (Los Angeles, Newark, and Seattle/Tacoma). Participants across the three sites were roughly the same age, with mean ages of 40 in Seattle/Tacoma, 37 in Newark, and 36 in Los Angeles. Sex distributions were similar between Los Angeles and Newark participants, (63 percent male in Los Angeles and 62 percent male in Newark), while Seattle/Tacoma participants were much less likely to be male (39 percent male). The distribution of participants by sex is likely an artifact of recruiting methods employed at each site, and does not reflect the distribution of the underlying population. According to 1990 Census data, across all sites, males with disabilities are more likely to be employed than comparable females. For example, in 1990, among males with mobility limitations in Washington State, 26 percent were employed compared to 20 percent of females. The figures for New Jersey were 30 versus 23 percent (respectively), and 28 versus 19 percent (respectively) in California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Mean age at first work for participants was quite similar across the sites (age 21 for Seattle/Tacoma and Newark, and age 19 for Los Angeles). Average hours worked per week were comparable in both Seattle/Tacoma and Newark (37 and 35 hours, respectively) versus 25 hours per week in Los Angeles.
The distribution of impairments varied across sites. Mental illness predominated among participants in Los Angeles and Newark (39 and 37 percent, respectively), while the largest share of Seattle/Tacoma participants experienced communication impairments (25 percent). About one quarter of participants in both Newark and Seattle/Tacoma had cognitive impairments, while only 10 percent of Los Angeles participants had this impairment. Mobility impairments were roughly equal across sites (17 percent in Los Angeles, 22 percent in Newark and 20 percent in Seattle/Tacoma). About 8 percent of all participants in each site had other chronic illnesses. Just over 50 percent of participants in each group experienced disability onset before age 13. Participants in Newark (65 percent) and Los Angeles (58 percent) were more likely to be single than Seattle/Tacoma participants (44 percent). Newark and Los Angeles participants (29 percent and 20 percent, respectively) were more likely to be black or African American than were Seattle/Tacoma participants (5 percent). Los Angeles participants were more likely to be Hispanic (29 percent) than either Seattle/Tacoma or Newark participants (three and four percent, respectively). Los Angeles participants (29 percent) were less likely to have completed college than either Newark (41 percent) or Seattle/Tacoma participants (47 percent). Newark participants (1.3 average employment interruptions) and Los Angeles participants (1.6 interruptions) also experienced fewer average employment interruptions since first significant employment compared to Seattle/Tacoma participants (1.8 average interruptions).
| Exhibit 2. Participant Characteristics, Overall and by Site | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Los Angeles | Newark | Seattle/Tacoma | All Sites | ||||
| Sample Size | 104 | 72 | 108 | 284 | ||||
| Frequency | Percent | Frequency | Percent | Frequency | Percent | Frequency | Percent | |
| SEX | ||||||||
| Female | 38 | 37.3 | 27 | 38.0 | 65 | 60.7 | 130 | 46.4 |
| Male | 64 | 62.7 | 44 | 62.0 | 42 | 39.3 | 150 | 53.6 |
| Missing | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| MARITAL STATUS | ||||||||
| Single, Never Married | 59 | 57.8 | 44 | 64.7 | 47 | 43.9 | 150 | 54.2 |
| Married | 29 | 28.4 | 13 | 19.1 | 40 | 37.4 | 82 | 29.6 |
| Divorced | 12 | 11.8 | 8 | 11.8 | 17 | 15.9 | 37 | 13.4 |
| Separated | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 2.9 | 3 | 2.8 | 7 | 2.5 |
| Widowed | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.4 |
| Missing | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 | ||||
| RACE | ||||||||
| White | 43 | 43.9 | 38 | 55.9 | 91 | 86.7 | 172 | 63.5 |
| African-American | 20 | 20.4 | 20 | 29.4 | 5 | 4.8 | 45 | 16.6 |
| Asian | 4 | 4.1 | 3 | 4.4 | 2 | 1.9 | 9 | 3.3 |
| Other | 28 | 28.6 | 6 | 8.8 | 5 | 4.8 | 39 | 14.4 |
| Refused | 3 | 3.1 | 1 | 1.5 | 2 | 1.9 | 6 | 2.2 |
| Missing | 6 | 4 | 3 | 13 | ||||
| ETHNICITY | ||||||||
| Hispanic | 30 | 28.8 | 3 | 4.2 | 3 | 2.8 | 36 | 12.7 |
| Non-Hispanic* | 74 | 71.2 | 69 | 95.8 | 105 | 97.2 | 248 | 87.3 |
| PRIMARY IMPAIRMENT | ||||||||
| Cognitive | 10 | 9.6 | 15 | 23.1 | 24 | 22.2 | 49 | 17.7 |
| Communication | 26 | 25.0 | 7 | 10.8 | 27 | 25.0 | 60 | 21.7 |
| Mobility | 18 | 17.3 | 14 | 21.5 | 22 | 20.4 | 54 | 19.5 |
| Mental Illness | 41 | 39.4 | 24 | 36.9 | 26 | 24.1 | 91 | 32.9 |
| Other Chronic Illness | 9 | 8.7 | 5 | 7.7 | 9 | 8.3 | 23 | 8.3 |
| Missing | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | ||||
| EDUCATION | ||||||||
| Less Than High School | 8 | 7.9 | 9 | 12.7 | 13 | 12.6 | 30 | 10.9 |
| High School Graduate | 21 | 20.8 | 18 | 25.4 | 19 | 18.4 | 58 | 21.1 |
| Some College | 43 | 42.6 | 15 | 21.1 | 23 | 22.3 | 81 | 29.5 |
| Four-Year College or More | 29 | 28.7 | 29 | 40.8 | 48 | 46.6 | 106 | 38.5 |
| Missing | 3 | 1 | 5 | 9 | ||||
| PERSONAL EARNINGS | ||||||||
| Less Than $10,000 | 19 | 18.3 | 15 | 21.4 | 30 | 27.8 | 64 | 22.7 |
| $10,001-$20,000 | 35 | 33.7 | 23 | 32.9 | 28 | 25.9 | 86 | 30.5 |
| $20,001-$35,000 | 28 | 26.9 | 16 | 22.9 | 23 | 21.3 | 67 | 23.8 |
| $35,001-$50,000 | 9 | 8.7 | 14 | 20.0 | 19 | 17.6 | 42 | 14.9 |
| $50,001-$75,000 | 10 | 9.6 | 2 | 2.9 | 5 | 4.6 | 17 | 6.0 |
| More Than $75,000 | 3 | 2.9 | 0 | 0.0 | 3 | 2.8 | 6 | 2.1 |
| Missing | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| HOUSEHOLD INCOME | ||||||||
| Less Than $15,000 | 32 | 30.8 | 14 | 23.0 | 22 | 23.7 | 68 | 26.4 |
| $15,001-$37,500 | 39 | 37.5 | 25 | 41.0 | 38 | 40.9 | 102 | 39.5 |
| $37,501-$52,500 | 10 | 9.6 | 10 | 16.4 | 13 | 14.0 | 33 | 12.8 |
| $52,501-$75,000 | 15 | 14.4 | 6 | 9.8 | 10 | 10.8 | 31 | 12.0 |
| More Than $75,000 | 8 | 7.7 | 6 | 9.8 | 10 | 10.8 | 24 | 9.3 |
| Missing | 0 | 11 | 15 | 26 | ||||
| PARENTS' EDUCATION | ||||||||
| Less than High School | 21 | 21.0 | 11 | 16.2 | 15 | 14.7 | 47 | 17.4 |
| High School Graduate | 24 | 24.0 | 19 | 27.9 | 21 | 20.6 | 64 | 23.7 |
| Some College | 35 | 35.0 | 16 | 23.5 | 31 | 30.4 | 82 | 30.4 |
| Four-Year College or More | 20 | 20.0 | 22 | 32.4 | 35 | 34.3 | 77 | 28.5 |
| Missing | 4 | 4 | 6 | 14 | ||||
| CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD | ||||||||
| 0 | 73 | 70.2 | 50 | 78.1 | 81 | 76.4 | 204 | 74.5 |
| 1 | 15 | 14.4 | 7 | 10.9 | 12 | 11.3 | 34 | 12.4 |
| 2 | 10 | 9.6 | 5 | 7.8 | 11 | 10.4 | 26 | 9.5 |
| 3 | 2 | 1.9 | 2 | 3.1 | 1 | 0.9 | 5 | 1.8 |
| 4 | 4 | 3.8 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.9 | 5 | 1.8 |
| Missing | 0 | 8 | 2 | 10 | ||||
| AGE AT ONSET OF DISABILITY | ||||||||
| 0-12 | 55 | 52.9 | 37 | 56.1 | 62 | 57.4 | 154 | 55.4 |
| 13-18 | 24 | 23.1 | 10 | 15.2 | 15 | 13.9 | 49 | 17.6 |
| 19 and older | 25 | 24.0 | 19 | 28.8 | 31 | 28.7 | 75 | 27.0 |
| Missing | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | ||||
| Characteristic | Los Angeles | Newark | Seattle/Tacoma | All Sites | ||||
| Mean | Missing | Mean | Missing | Mean | Missing | Mean | Missing | |
| Average Age | 35.6 | 0 | 37.4 | 1 | 39.5 | 0 | 37.6 | 1 |
| EMPLOYMENT | ||||||||
| Age at First Work | 19.4 | 2 | 21.3 | 6 | 20.7 | 4 | 20.4 | 12 |
| Hours Worked per Week | 35.3 | 0 | 34.9 | 0 | 37.0 | 1 | 35.8 | 1 |
| Months Worked per Year | 11.4 | 0 | 9.6 | 3 | 11.6 | 2 | 11.0 | 5 |
| Number of Job Interruptions | 1.6 | 0 | 1.3 | 0 | 1.8 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 |
| * Includes both "No" responses and non-responses to "Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic origin?" | ||||||||
Participant characteristics by primary reason for impairment are shown in Exhibit 3. Of the five impairment categories, four were predominantly composed of men: cognitive (57 percent), mental illness (61 percent), mobility (52 percent), and other chronic impairments (52 percent). The percentage of participants who reported their race as white was very nearly the same (approximately 60 percent) across all impairment categories, except for the cognitive impairment category (81 percent).
Educational achievement varied substantially by impairment category. Approximately 17 to 19 percent of participants in the cognitive, mental illness, and other chronic illness categories had less than a high school education, while only six percent of participants with mobility impairments and zero percent of participants with communication impairments did not complete high school. Individuals with communication impairments were most highly educated, with 58 percent possessing a four-year degree or more. The figure for those with mobility impairments was nearly 50 percent, and about 40 percent for people with mental illness.
Individuals with cognitive and other chronic illnesses were most likely to live in low-income (less than $15,000 annually) households (50 and 47 percent, respectively). Individuals with mobility and communication and impairments were the most likely to live in higher-income households, with 32 and 47 percent, respectively, living in households with incomes above $37,500 annually.
The average age of participants by category was similar, ranging from 36 to 39 years. Mean age at first work was also similar (between 19 and 21 years old). While the large majority of participants worked 35 or more hours per week, individuals with cognitive impairments averaged only 31 hours per week. Individuals with cognitive impairments also worked fewer months a year (10 months) versus about 10 to 12 months per year for those in other impairment categories. The number of lifetime job interruptions was highest for those with mental illnesses (2.4), while average interruptions ranged from 1.5 to 1.8 lifetime for the remaining impairment categories. Most participants lived in childless households (from a low of 67 percent among participants with communication impairments to a high of 91 percent among participants with cognitive impairments). Between 10 percent (among participants with cognitive impairments) and 30 percent (among participant with other chronic illnesses) lived in households with one or two children.
| Exhibit 3. Participant Characteristics by Impairment | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Cognitive | Communication | Mental Illness |
Mobility | Other Chronic |
Not Identified |
All |
| Sample Size | 49 | 60 | 54 | 91 | 23 | 7 | 284 |
| Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | |
| SEX | |||||||
| Female | 42.9 | 59.3 | 38.9 | 47.8 | 47.6 | 0.0 | 46.4 |
| Male | 57.1 | 40.7 | 61.1 | 52.2 | 52.4 | 100.0 | 53.6 |
| Missing (N) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| MARITAL STATUS | |||||||
| Single, Never Married | 63.0 | 35.0 | 65.4 | 53.3 | 59.1 | 71.4 | 54.2 |
| Married | 23.9 | 45.0 | 17.3 | 34.4 | 9.1 | 28.6 | 29.6 |
| Divorced | 13.0 | 16.7 | 17.3 | 7.8 | 22.7 | 0.0 | 13.4 |
| Separated | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 2.5 |
| Widowed | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| Missing (N) | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| RACE | |||||||
| White | 81.3 | 62.7 | 63.0 | 60.2 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 63.5 |
| African-American | 8.3 | 11.9 | 20.4 | 15.7 | 28.6 | 66.7 | 16.6 |
| Asian | 0.0 | 1.7 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 3.3 |
| Other | 10.4 | 20.3 | 7.4 | 18.1 | 4.8 | 33.3 | 14.4 |
| Refused | 0.0 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 |
| Missing (N) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
| ETHNICITY | |||||||
| Hispanic | 8.2 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 15.4 | 13.0 | 14.3 | 12.7 |
| Non-Hispanic* | 91.8 | 81.7 | 94.4 | 84.6 | 87.0 | 85.7 | 87.3 |
| SITE | |||||||
| Los Angeles | 20.4 | 43.3 | 33.3 | 45.1 | 39.1 | 0.0 | 36.6 |
| Newark | 30.6 | 11.7 | 25.9 | 26.4 | 21.7 | 100.0 | 25.4 |
| Seattle/Tacoma | 49.0 | 45.0 | 40.7 | 28.6 | 39.1 | 38.0 | |
| EDUCATION | |||||||
| Less Than High School | 19.1 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 5.7 | 19.0 | 42.9 | 10.9 |
| High School Graduate | 55.3 | 6.8 | 16.7 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 21.1 |
| Some College | 17.0 | 35.6 | 25.9 | 33.3 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 29.5 |
| Four-Year College or More | 8.5 | 57.6 | 40.7 | 47.1 | 23.8 | 0.0 | 38.5 |
| Missing (N) | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 9 |
| PERSONAL EARNINGS | |||||||
| Less Than $10,000 | 43.8 | 6.7 | 37.0 | 12.1 | 30.4 | 16.7 | 22.7 |
| $10,001-$20,000 | 41.7 | 21.7 | 29.6 | 26.4 | 39.1 | 66.7 | 30.5 |
| $20,001-$35,000 | 10.4 | 33.3 | 14.8 | 29.7 | 26.1 | 16.7 | 23.8 |
| $35,001-$50,000 | 4.2 | 20.0 | 16.7 | 19.8 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 14.9 |
| $50,001-$75,000 | 0.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.0 |
| More Than $75,000 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 |
| Missing (N) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| HOUSEHOLD INCOME | |||||||
| Less Than $15,000 | 50.0 | 7.0 | 29.2 | 19.3 | 47.4 | 66.7 | 26.4 |
| $15,001-$37,500 | 35.0 | 45.6 | 47.9 | 33.0 | 42.1 | 33.3 | 39.5 |
| $37,501-$52,500 | 5.0 | 24.6 | 8.3 | 13.6 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 12.8 |
| $52,501-$75,000 | 2.5 | 17.5 | 8.3 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 |
| More Than $75,000 | 7.5 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 15.9 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 9.3 |
| Missing (N) | 9 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 26 |
| PARENTS' EDUCATION | |||||||
| Less than High School | 15.6 | 18.6 | 26.5 | 13.3 | 10.0 | 28.6 | 17.4 |
| High School Graduate | 40.0 | 16.9 | 12.2 | 22.2 | 30.0 | 57.1 | 23.7 |
| Some College | 26.7 | 37.3 | 18.4 | 35.6 | 30.0 | 14.3 | 30.4 |
| Four-Year College or More | 17.8 | 27.1 | 42.9 | 28.9 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 28.5 |
| Missing (N) | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 14 |
| CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD | |||||||
| 0 | 90.5 | 67.2 | 81.1 | 69.2 | 69.6 | 71.4 | 74.5 |
| 1 | 4.8 | 13.8 | 15.1 | 14.3 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 12.4 |
| 2 | 4.8 | 13.8 | 1.9 | 11.0 | 17.4 | 14.3 | 9.5 |
| 3 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 1.8 |
| 4 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 |
| Missing (N) | 7 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| AGE AT ONSET OF DISABILITY | |||||||
| 0-12 | 87.8 | 78.3 | 20.4 | 40.0 | 69.6 | 50.0 | 55.4 |
| 13-18 | 2.0 | 10.0 | 31.5 | 22.2 | 17.4 | 50.0 | 17.6 |
| 19 and older | 10.2 | 11.7 | 48.1 | 37.8 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 27.0 |
| Missing (N) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 6 |
| Characteristic | Cognitive | Communication | Mental Illness |
Mobility | Other Chronic |
Not Identified |
All |
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |
| Average Age | 36.2 | 39.4 | 38.6 | 36.7 | 37.7 | 34.0 | 37.6 |
| Missing (N) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| EMPLOYMENT | |||||||
| Age at First Work | 21.3 | 21.2 | 20.1 | 20.1 | 18.8 | 16.6 | 20.4 |
| Hours Worked per Week | 30.5 | 38.8 | 34.9 | 37.2 | 37.7 | 30.7 | 36.0 |
| Months Worked per Year | 9.6 | 11.4 | 11.4 | 11.6 | 10.4 | 10.3 | 11.1 |
| Number of Job Interruptions | 1.5 | 1.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Missing (N) | 7 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 18 |
| * Includes both "No" responses and non-responses to "Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic origin?" | |||||||
State selection was performed prior to the passage to TWWIIA.
The Los Angeles metropolitan area is the second-largest metropolitan area in the country. (The New York City metropolitan area is largest.)
In order to recruit a sufficient number of participants in some locales, the minimum income was lowered slightly (to $7,500 per year) during some recruitment phases.
For individuals with communication impairments, we administered the screening questionnaire using a TTY.
Possible responses to the prompt "Please tell me how much difficulty you have doing each of the following" included "No difficulty," "Some" difficulty, "A lot" of difficulty, and "Unable to do."
At each site, a number of individuals who were screened in as focus group participants but who could not attend a focus group were interviewed by phone.
| Return to: You can also advance to: |