U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

Disability Characteristics of Income-Based 

Government Assistance Recipients in 

the United States: 2011

American Community Survey Briefs

Issued February 2013

ACSBR/11-12

By Bernice L. Boursiquot and Matthew W. Brault

Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, federal and 

state governments have been involved with lessening the consequences of economic hardship through 

various assistance programs. These programs have 

delivered relief through cash and/or in-kind assistance. These social assistance programs have relied, 

at least in part, on an individual’s or family’s income 

or other economic means to determine who may 

qualify for benefits, hence the term income-based 

assistance.

1 Understanding the characteristics of 

people that receive assistance may help governments 

coordinate and administer these programs better.

Disability status is an important characteristic of 

people receiving assistance for two reasons. First, 

some income-based assistance programs require that 

recipients have both low income and some kind of 

disability.2 The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

program, for instance, requires low-income individuals to either have a disability or be aged 65 or older.3

Furthermore, some income-based assistance programs 

allow recipients of another program that uses disability 

for eligibility to qualify automatically. For example, 

1 For the programs included in this brief, applicants are evaluated on 

several criteria, including income, resources (e.g., savings), and employment status. Other terms, such as “means-tested,” may also be used to 

describe these programs. A definition of “means-tested” can be found 

in Kim, Jeongsoo, Shelley K. Irving, and Tracy A. Loveless, “Dynamics 

of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2004 

to 2007 and 2009: Who Gets Assistance?,” Current Population Reports, 

P70-130, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012. Available at 

<www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-130.pdf>. 2 Medicaid uses the term “beneficiary” for program enrollees whereas 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known 

as Food Stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) use the term “recipient.” In order 

to be consistent with the majority of the programs, this brief will use 

the term “recipient” for all programs. 3 The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. For more information on SSI, go to the SSA’s Web site on SSI at 

<www.ssa.gov/pgm/ssi.htm>.

DEFINITIONS:

Cash assistance—assistance that is given in the 

form of cash or money income.

In-kind assistance—assistance that is given in 

the form of services, goods, or vouchers.

Recipient—an individual who receives government assistance based on eligibility criteria set 

by the federal and state governments.

With a disability—having vision, hearing, 

cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent 

living difficulty.

Vision difficulty—blindness or serious difficulty 

seeing even when wearing glasses.

Hearing difficulty—deafness or serious difficulty hearing.

Cognitive difficulty—serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.

Ambulatory difficulty—serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

Self-care difficulty—difficulty bathing or 

dressing.

Independent living difficulty—having difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a 

doctor’s office or shopping.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

some states have criteria that 

automatically qualify SSI recipients for Medicaid and do not make 

their own disability determination. 

Alternatively, states may exempt 

income derived from government 

programs that target individuals 

with disabilities. For example, the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP, formerly known 

as Food Stamps) does not include 

SSI payments in the calculation of income for eligibility.4

The second reason disability is an 

important characteristic is due to 

the economic disparities between 

individuals with and without disabilities that may contribute to the need 

for government assistance. About 

one-in-three adults aged 18 to 64 

with disabilities were employed 

in 2011, while three out of every 

four adults within the same age 

group and without a disability were 

4 SNAP gives recipients an electronic benefit transfer card to purchase food. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees SNAP and state governments implement 

the program. Family size, disability status, 

age, receipt of other government assistance, 

and other resources determine household eligibility requirements. For more information on 

SNAP, go to the USDA’s Web site on SNAP at 

<www.fns.usda.gov/snap/Default.htm>.

employed.5 Among those who did 

work, the median annual earnings 

for individuals with disabilities was 

$19,735, compared with $30,285 

for those without a disability.6

With lower employment and earnings, on average, individuals with 

disabilities would appear to be at 

greater risk for needing assistance.

This brief presents information from 

the 2011 American Community 

Survey (ACS) showing the prevalence of disability among civilian noninstitutionalized adults 

aged 18 and older who received 

income-based government assistance—cash assistance programs 

(SSI, Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF), or other 

government assistance) and inkind assistance programs (SNAP 

5 B18120. Employment Status by Disability 

Status and Type, <http://factfinder2.census.gov

/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/11_1YR/B18120>. 6 B18140. Median Earnings in the Past 12 

Months (in 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by 

Disability Status by Sex for the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 16 Years and Over 

With Earnings, <http://factfinder2.census.gov

/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/11_1YR/B18140>.

and Medicaid).7,8,9 These data are 

presented for the nation and states 

to highlight the geographic variation of disability in this population. 

The civilian noninstitutionalized 

population does not include adults 

living in institutions like correctional facilities and nursing homes.

NATION

In 2011, nearly 46.0 million people, 

or 19.8 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 18 

years and older, received incomebased government assistance 

through SSI, SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, 

7 The ACS contains questions about Medicaid coverage, SNAP, SSI, TANF, and other public 

assistance. Receipt of TANF and other cash government assistance are asked as a single “public 

assistance” question and, as such, the Census 

Bureau cannot disaggregate TANF receipt from 

these other cash assistance programs. 8 TANF is a grant program in which state 

governments provide recipients short-term cash 

assistance and support in finding a job. The 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) oversees the administration of TANF. For 

more information about TANF, visit <www.acf

.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf>. 9 Medicaid, overseen by HHS, provides 

health coverage to people with low incomes, 

people with disabilities, pregnant women, 

and senior citizens. State governments, which 

administer Medicaid, can change eligibility 

requirements. However, their requirements 

must exceed the requirements set by the federal government. For more information about 

Medicaid, please go to <www.medicaid.gov/>. 

Figure 1. 

Disability Prevalence and Type Among Income-Based Government Assistance 

Recipients: 2011

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and older who received assistance)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Surveys.

18.2

14.6

7.7

6.2 5.8

14.2

Percent

30.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Vision 

difficulty

Hearing 

difficulty

Self-care

difficulty

Cognitive 

difficulty

Independent

 living difficulty

With a

 disability

Ambulatory 

difficulty
U.S. Census Bureau 3

or other government assistance. 

Among individuals who received 

government assistance, 14.0 million 

people, or 30.4 percent, had one or 

more types of disability (see text 

box on page 1). By disability type, 

18.2 percent of assistance recipients 

had difficulty walking or climbing 

stairs (ambulatory difficulty) and 

14.6 percent had an independent 

living difficulty disability, defined 

as difficulty doing errands alone, 

such as visiting a doctor’s office 

or shopping. About 14.2 percent had difficulty concentrating, 

remembering, or making decisions (cognitive difficulty). Figure 

1 shows the disability prevalence 

among the population aged 18 and 

older who received income-based 

government assistance in 2011.

As shown in Figure 2, the distribution of government assistance 

types—cash assistance only, in-kind 

assistance only, and both cash and 

in-kind assistance—is different for 

those with and without disabilities. 

Both recipients with and without disabilities were more likely to receive 

only in-kind assistance, with 57.0 

percent and 85.4 percent, respectively, receiving only this type. Cash 

assistance only was the least likely 

for both groups as 2.2 percent 

of those with a disability and 1.9 

percent of those without disabilities received only cash assistance. 

Nearly 41.0 percent of recipients 

with a disability and 12.7 percent of 

recipients with no disability received 

both cash and in-kind assistance.

Figure 3 shows the disability prevalence among the three assistance 

groups. Within the population that 

received both cash and in-kind benefits, 58.3 percent of recipients had 

a disability. Individuals who received 

only cash assistance had a disability 

rate of 33.2 percent. Those collecting only in-kind benefits had the 

lowest rate of disability at 22.6 percent. However, as shown in Figure 

2, individuals who received only 

cash assistance were a small proportion of individuals receiving incomebased government assistance.

STATES

Federal and state governments work 

together in creating and administering government assistance 

programs, including setting eligibility requirements and the amount 

of cash assistance to be received. 

The disability rate among the 

population who received incomebased assistance ranged from 

25.1 percent in Arizona to 41.7 

Figure 2. 

Distribution of Income-Based Government Assistance 

Type by Disability Status: 2011

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and older who received assistance)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

2.0

57.0

In-kind assistance only

2.2 40.8

85.4 1.9 12.7

No

 disability

With a

 disability

Cash assistance only Both cash and 

in-kind assistance

Figure 3. 

Disability Prevalence by Government Assistance 

Type

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and older who received assistance)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey.

33.2

22.6

58.3

Both cash and

in-kind 

assistance

In-kind assistance

 only

Cash assistance

 only
4 U.S. Census Bureau

percent in West Virginia (Table 1).10

Twenty-two states had disability 

rates above the national estimate of 

30.4 percent among those receiving assistance, while 15 states had 

rates below the national estimate.

As shown in Figure 4, states 

along and immediately west of 

the Appalachian mountain range 

tended to have higher rates of disability among the population that 

received income-based assistance. 

States in the southwest and along 

the eastern seaboard tended to 

have lower rates of disability. 

10 The disability rate for people receiving 

income-based assistance in Arizona was not 

statistically different from the rates in New 

York or Hawaii. The disability rate in West 

Virginia was not statistically different from the 

rate in Wyoming.

States with higher disability rates 

in the total civilian noninstitutionalized population also tended 

to experience high disability 

rates in the population receiving 

assistance.11 For instance, West 

Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas 

were among the top five states for 

disability prevalence in the total 

population and in the population of 

those receiving assistance. However, 

there were exceptions that may 

reflect the population of people with 

disabilities being more concentrated 

(or less concentrated) in the population of those receiving assistance. 

11 State ranking for disability prevalence in 

the total civilian noninstituationalized population can be found in Ranking Table R1810 

available at <http://factfinder2.census

.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/11_1YR/R1810

.US01PRF>.

For example, Wyoming and New 

Hampshire were near the middle of 

the ranking of states for disability 

prevalence in the total population, 

but were among the top for disability prevalence in the population 

receiving assistance. Conversely, 

Oregon had an overall disability 

rate above the U.S. estimate, but 

was below the U.S. estimate for 

prevalence among people receiving 

assistance. Differences in relative 

rankings may be associated with 

characteristics relating to the eligibility for assistance and the receipt 

of non-income-based programs 

like Social Security and Medicare.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(

(TX

(

CA

(

MT

(

AZ

ID

NV

( (

KS

CO

NM

(

OR

(

UT

SD

(IL

(

WY

(

NE (IA

(FL

MN

(

OK

ND

(

WI

WA

(

AL GA

(

MO

(PA

(

AR

(LA

(

NC

(

MS

(

NY

(IN

MI

(

VA

(TN

(

KY

(SC

(

OH

(

ME

(

WV

VT

(

NH

(

NJ

MD

(

MA

CT

(

DE

RI

(

DC

AK

( PR HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, 

2011 Puerto Rico Community Survey.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles

Percent by state

33.0 to 35.9

30.0 to 32.9

27.0 to 29.9

Less than 27.0

Disability Prevalence Among Income-Based Government Assistance 

Recipients by State: 2011

U.S. percent is 30.4

Figure 4.

United States percentage

does not include data for 

Puerto Rico. Note: A state abbreviation surrounded by 

the " " symbol denotes the value for the 

state is statistically different from the 

U.S. percentage.

36.0 or more

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and older who received assistance)
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 1. 

Disability Prevalence and Type Among Income-Based Government Assistance 

Recipients: 2011

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Geography

Government 

assistance recipients

With a

disability

Cognitive 

difficulty

Ambulatory 

difficulty

Self-care or 

independent living

difficulty

Number

Margin of 

error1 

(±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 

(±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 

(±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 

(±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 

(±)

 United States . . 45,985,574 146,454 30.4 0.1 14.2 0.1 18.2 0.1 15.9 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 832,803 16,132 36.5 1.1 16.6 0.8 23.7 0.9 19.4 0.9

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,865 5,247 31.7 2.3 13.5 1.9 17.3 1.9 14.2 2.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,084,878 27,901 25.1 0.9 11.6 0.7 14.6 0.7 12.9 0.7

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 477,730 13,751 37.2 1.3 16.1 1.0 23.3 1.1 18.4 1.0

California . . . . . . . . . . . 5,294,634 42,612 27.9 0.3 13.0 0.3 16.5 0.3 16.1 0.3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 540,712 15,629 29.1 1.2 13.8 0.8 15.7 0.8 13.9 0.7

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 478,026 12,893 29.8 1.3 14.5 1.0 17.3 0.9 15.0 0.8

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 135,892 7,704 27.7 2.2 13.1 1.6 16.7 1.6 14.4 1.8

District of Columbia . . . 126,489 5,672 27.8 2.1 13.2 1.6 17.9 1.7 14.6 1.4

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,180,745 44,612 28.2 0.5 12.7 0.4 17.1 0.4 14.6 0.4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,489,488 30,837 29.9 0.7 13.5 0.5 18.5 0.6 15.2 0.5

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204,358 10,936 25.2 2.0 13.0 1.6 15.1 1.6 13.6 1.5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214,772 9,452 28.7 1.9 14.6 1.5 15.5 1.1 14.5 1.4

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,837,242 28,430 26.7 0.5 11.9 0.4 16.3 0.4 14.3 0.4

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857,161 20,317 33.4 0.9 16.0 0.6 19.8 0.7 16.7 0.6

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375,881 11,926 32.4 1.1 15.4 0.9 18.0 0.9 16.2 0.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294,030 8,759 35.6 1.4 17.6 1.2 20.6 1.1 19.6 1.2

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 731,907 15,912 39.4 0.9 18.2 0.7 24.7 0.7 19.9 0.9

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 783,716 17,771 33.8 1.1 16.0 0.8 21.0 0.8 17.2 0.8

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254,387 9,431 36.9 1.6 18.1 1.1 20.0 1.4 17.0 1.1

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 689,611 17,134 29.5 1.1 14.5 0.9 17.1 0.8 15.8 0.8

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 1,124,994 21,072 29.3 0.8 14.2 0.6 16.4 0.6 15.4 0.6

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 1,832,791 21,663 30.4 0.5 14.9 0.4 17.6 0.4 15.8 0.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 623,495 12,011 29.9 1.0 15.2 0.7 15.3 0.7 15.6 0.6

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 560,897 14,603 34.9 1.1 16.7 0.9 23.2 0.9 18.9 0.9

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 850,963 18,316 36.0 1.0 17.5 0.7 21.8 0.7 18.4 0.7

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,762 6,521 34.5 2.6 17.9 2.0 20.4 2.4 17.0 1.8

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 170,415 7,099 33.7 1.7 16.8 1.4 18.8 1.2 15.5 1.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 331,571 16,069 29.0 2.2 12.0 1.2 18.8 1.8 15.5 1.7

New Hampshire . . . . . . 131,643 6,444 37.8 2.2 17.6 2.1 22.0 1.8 20.0 1.5

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 937,574 18,151 29.4 0.7 13.4 0.6 18.0 0.6 17.0 0.6

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 369,922 11,246 29.2 1.6 14.3 1.1 17.8 1.3 14.6 1.0

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 3,540,176 35,402 25.7 0.4 11.2 0.3 15.9 0.3 13.0 0.3

North Carolina . . . . . . . 1,452,987 25,310 31.9 0.7 14.4 0.5 19.5 0.6 16.8 0.6

North Dakota . . . . . . . . 58,991 3,851 31.9 2.8 15.7 2.3 17.0 2.0 13.3 2.1

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,692,080 22,963 33.9 0.5 16.9 0.4 20.0 0.5 17.4 0.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 558,172 11,356 35.4 1.1 15.7 0.8 21.7 0.9 17.2 0.8

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740,057 17,315 27.8 1.0 13.7 0.6 15.9 0.7 13.1 0.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 1,776,632 23,869 35.2 0.6 17.1 0.5 20.5 0.5 18.4 0.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 161,261 7,965 32.3 2.5 15.0 1.5 18.6 1.8 15.5 1.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . 757,024 18,761 31.8 1.1 14.0 0.8 19.9 0.9 16.2 0.8

South Dakota . . . . . . . . 90,725 5,552 31.4 2.6 14.9 2.2 18.2 1.9 15.2 2.0

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 1,134,805 19,480 34.9 0.9 17.2 0.6 21.7 0.6 18.2 0.7

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,517,485 46,066 28.6 0.5 12.6 0.3 17.7 0.4 15.1 0.4

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273,112 12,324 27.8 1.8 14.4 1.2 15.5 1.3 15.3 1.4

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,616 4,812 31.1 1.7 15.9 1.5 16.3 1.4 14.6 1.4

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 858,709 21,726 33.4 1.0 15.9 0.7 20.3 0.8 17.4 0.7

Washington . . . . . . . . . 1,054,021 23,510 31.0 0.9 16.2 0.7 17.4 0.7 16.0 0.7

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 326,563 10,254 41.7 1.5 20.2 1.0 26.8 1.4 20.9 1.2

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . 820,594 13,625 28.5 0.8 13.6 0.6 16.2 0.6 14.1 0.6

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 43,210 4,319 40.0 3.9 19.8 4.0 23.2 3.3 19.4 3.2

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . 1,468,966 20,283 30.0 0.7 14.1 0.6 16.6 0.5 16.1 0.6

1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, 2011 Puerto Rico Community Survey.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

MORE INFORMATION

For more information about disability in the United States, see 

the Census Bureau Web site on 

Disability at <www.census.gov

/hhes/www/disability/> or contact 

the Health and Disability Statistics 

Branch of the Census Bureau 

at 301-763-9112 or e-mail at 

<matthew.w.brault@census.gov>.

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample 

interviewed in 2011. The estimates 

based on this sample approximate 

the actual values and represent 

the entire household and group 

quarters population. Sampling 

error is the difference between an 

estimate based in a sample and the 

corresponding value that would be 

obtained if the estimate were based 

on the entire population (as from a 

census). Measures of the sampling 

errors are provided in the form of 

margins of error for all estimates 

included in this report. All comparative statements in this report 

have undergone statistical testing, 

and comparisons are significant at 

the 90 percent level unless otherwise noted. In addition to sampling 

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For more information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the 2011 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data document located at

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data

_2011.pdf>.

What Is the American Community Survey?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities with reliable and timely 

demographic, social, economic, and housing data for the nation, 

states, congressional districts, counties, places, and other localities 

every year. It has an annual sample size of about 3.3 million 

addresses across the United States and Puerto Rico and includes 

both housing units and group quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and 

prisons). The ACS is conducted in every county throughout the 

nation, and every municipio in Puerto Rico, where it is called the 

Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 

2005 were released for geographic areas with populations of 65,000 

and greater. For information on the ACS sample design and other 

topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>.