American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Disability Among the Working Age 

Population: 2008 and 2009

Introduction

Many policies directed toward the 

population of people with disabilities 

have focused on expanding employment 

opportunities. Federal laws, like the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1972 and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA), have attempted to improve workplace conditions by encouraging reasonable accommodation and reducing job 

discrimination. Over the two decades 

since the ADA was signed, countless 

numbers of people with disabilities have 

credited the legislation with improving 

their lives.1 Despite the progress made, 

barriers still remain that limit full participation in the labor force.2

This report presents data on disability 

and employment among the population 

16 to 64 years old to help assess the 

economic differences between people 

with and without disabilities in the 2008 

and 2009 American Community Surveys 

(ACS). The data presented in this report 

are for the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population, which exclude people in 

prisons, nursing homes, and active duty 

military.

Disability: Difficulty with any of the 

six types of disability collected in the 

American Community Survey: vision, 

hearing, ambulatory, cognitive, selfcare, and independent living. It covers 

functional limitations in the three 

domains of disability (communication, 

mental, and physical3), activities of 

daily living (ADLs), and instrumental 

activities of daily living (IADLs).

Vision difficulty: Blindness or 

serious difficulty seeing, even when 

wearing glasses or contacts.

Hearing difficulty: Deafness or 

serious difficulty hearing.

Cognitive difficulty: Serious difficulty remembering, concentrating, or 

making decisions.

Ambulatory difficulty: Serious 

difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

Self-care difficulty: Difficulty dressing or bathing. This type relates to 

ADLs.

Independent living difficulty: 

Difficulty doing errands alone such as 

visiting a doctor’s office or shopping. 

This type relates to IADLs.

Employment-to-population ratio:

The ratio of people who are currently 

employed to the total population, in 

terms of percentage.

Issued September 2010

ACSBR/09-12

By

Matthew W. Brault

 1 National Council on Disability, “The Impact of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the 

Progress Toward Achieving the Goals of the ADA,” 

Washington, DC. July 26, 2007.

 2 National Council on Disability, “National 

Disability Policy: A Progress Report,” Washington, DC. 

March 31, 2009.

 3 The three domains of disability are used 

to broadly categorize types of disability. See 

Americans With Disabilities: 2005 (P70-117) 

available at <www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs

/p70-117.pdf>.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

HIGHLIGHTS

•	 In 2009, 19.5 million people,

or 9.9 percent of the civilian 

noninstitutionalized population 

aged 16 to 64, had a disability. 

Between 2008 and 2009, both 

the number and percent of 

people with disabilities did not 

change.

•	 In 2009, West Virginia had the

highest disability rate for people 

aged 16 to 64 years at 16.8 

percent. Hawaii had the lowest 

rate, not statistically different from California, Colorado, 

Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, 

and Utah.

•	 About 34.7 percent of people

with disabilities were employed 

compared with 71.9 percent 

of people without a disability. 

North Dakota4 had the highest employment-to-population 

ratio for people with disabilities, whereas the District 

of Columbia5 had the lowest 

employment-to-population ratio 

for people with disabilities.

DISABILITY IN THE 

WORKING-AGE POPULATION

Of the 197.6 million people aged 

16 to 64 in the civilian noninstitutionalized population in 2009, 

about 9.9 percent, or 19.5 million

people, had a disability (see table). 

Neither the number nor percent 

of people with a disability were 

statistically different from the 2008 

estimates.

Ambulatory difficulty was the most 

prevalent disability type at 5.0 percent of the population, as shown in 

Figure 1. About 1.7 percent of the 

population had a vision difficulty, 

2.0 percent had a hearing difficulty, 

and 4.1 percent had a cognitive 

difficulty. Self-care and independent 

living difficulties were present in 

1.7 percent and 3.4 percent of the 

population, respectively.6

As shown in the table, West Virginia

had the highest prevalence of disability of any state at 16.8 percent. 

Hawaii had the lowest prevalence 

of disability at 7.5 percent, not statistically different from California, 

Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New 

Jersey, and Utah. Between 2008 and 

2009, seven states experienced 

changes in the rates of disability. 

The disability prevalence rates 

for Arizona, Illinois, Mississippi, 

and Texas decreased while the 

prevalence rates for Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Ohio increased.

EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE 

WITH DISABILITIES

Because a large proportion of 

people with disabilities are not in 

the labor force, an employment-topopulation ratio is a more descriptive measure of this population’s 

economic situation. Nationally, 

34.7 percent of people aged 16 to 

64 years with a disability were 

employed in 2009, down from 

38.2 percent in 2008. For 

people without a disability, the 

employment-to-population ratio 

decreased from 75.2 percent in

2008 to 71.9 percent in 2009. 

While the declines between the two 

groups were not statistically 

different from each other, people 

Figure 1. 

Disability Status and Type: 2009

Note: Data are for the civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 16 to 64 years. 

This excludes people in correctional facilities, nursing homes, other institutions, 

and the armed forces.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

Percentage of population

2.5 0.7*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Independent

living

difficulty

Selfcare

difficulty

Ambulatory

difficulty

Cognitive

difficulty

Hearing

difficulty

Vision

difficulty

With a

disability

 4 Not statistically different from 

Wyoming.

 5 Not statistically different from Alabama, 

Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

 6 The percentage with a vision difficulty 

and percentage with a self-care difficulty 

round to the same number but are statistically different.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Number and Percent of People 16 to 64 Years With a Disability by State and Puerto Rico: 

2008 and 2009 

Area

With a disability in 2008 With a disability in 2009 Change in disability

(2009 less 2008)

Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error2 (±) Number1

Margin of 

error2 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error2 (±) Number1 Percent

 United States . . 19,470,362 70,857 9.9 0.1 19,511,992 83,745 9.9 0.1 41,630 –0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . 424,476 11,477 14.3 0.4 433,364 10,030 14.5 0.3 8,888 0.2

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,574 4,093 11.7 0.9 49,765 5,116 10.7 1.1 –2,809 –0.9

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . 410,819 11,598 10.2 0.3 390,228 11,418 9.5 0.3 *–20,591 *–0.7

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . 278,740 8,005 15.5 0.4 284,750 8,978 15.7 0.5 6,010 0.2

California . . . . . . . . . . 1,920,577 26,636 8.0 0.1 1,898,118 22,046 7.9 0.1 –22,459 –0.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . 262,288 7,436 8.0 0.2 263,655 8,832 7.9 0.3 1,367 –

Connecticut . . . . . . . . 183,631 7,420 8.1 0.3 189,190 7,138 8.3 0.3 5,559 0.2

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . 60,439 3,988 10.8 0.7 60,525 4,248 10.7 0.7 86 –0.1

District of Columbia . . 36,831 3,690 8.9 0.9 42,254 4,185 10.0 1.0 5,423 1.1

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,083,669 20,469 9.5 0.2 1,095,352 19,800 9.5 0.2 11,683 –

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 631,345 13,542 10.1 0.2 632,084 15,463 10.0 0.2 739 –0.1

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,251 3,523 7.3 0.4 59,788 4,052 7.5 0.5 1,537 0.2

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,287 4,986 9.9 0.5 101,522 5,148 10.5 0.5 6,235 0.5

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678,493 15,627 8.1 0.2 654,101 13,743 7.8 0.2 *–24,392 *–0.3

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 444,183 10,531 10.8 0.3 437,399 10,592 10.6 0.3 –6,784 –0.2

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174,908 5,993 9.1 0.3 171,419 6,344 8.9 0.3 –3,489 –0.2

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,979 6,948 10.1 0.4 182,259 6,642 10.2 0.4 3,280 0.1

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . 425,754 9,088 15.4 0.3 425,914 11,424 15.3 0.4 160 –0.1

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . 365,227 9,585 12.9 0.3 359,341 10,354 12.5 0.4 –5,886 –0.4

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,125 5,102 13.3 0.6 118,589 4,737 13.6 0.5 3,464 0.4

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . 302,269 10,986 8.2 0.3 302,745 9,787 8.1 0.3 476 –0.1

Massachusetts . . . . . . 394,320 11,727 9.1 0.3 387,683 11,558 8.8 0.3 –6,637 –0.3

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 730,896 13,322 11.2 0.2 749,726 16,508 11.6 0.3 18,830 *0.3

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . 261,782 7,304 7.6 0.2 277,105 7,888 8.0 0.2 *15,323 *0.4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . 285,712 10,009 15.5 0.5 261,201 10,373 14.2 0.6 *–24,511 *–1.3

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . 455,257 10,978 12.0 0.3 463,093 10,727 12.1 0.3 7,836 0.1

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . 68,861 4,010 11.0 0.6 68,373 3,612 10.9 0.6 –488 –0.1

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . 95,848 4,837 8.5 0.4 98,624 4,711 8.7 0.4 2,776 0.2

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . 138,799 7,042 8.3 0.4 142,605 6,157 8.4 0.4 3,806 0.1

New Hampshire . . . . . 78,265 4,819 8.8 0.5 77,659 4,398 8.7 0.5 –606 –0.1

New Jersey . . . . . . . . 413,816 11,299 7.3 0.2 426,109 11,444 7.5 0.2 12,293 0.2

New Mexico . . . . . . . . 148,053 6,326 11.8 0.5 147,955 6,252 11.7 0.5 –98 –0.1

New York . . . . . . . . . . 1,115,645 18,070 8.7 0.1 1,109,513 16,133 8.6 0.1 –6,132 –

North Carolina . . . . . . 661,171 14,039 11.2 0.2 661,450 12,346 11.1 0.2 279 –0.1

North Dakota . . . . . . . 34,108 2,493 8.3 0.6 36,675 2,959 8.8 0.7 2,567 0.5

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819,340 13,974 11.1 0.2 850,393 15,028 11.4 0.2 *31,053 *0.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . 334,713 9,331 14.6 0.4 329,344 8,731 14.3 0.4 –5,369 –0.3

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . 271,816 9,585 10.9 0.4 265,448 8,388 10.6 0.3 –6,368 –0.3

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . 848,251 15,020 10.6 0.2 853,417 16,252 10.5 0.2 5,166 –0.1

Rhode Island . . . . . . . 70,313 4,393 10.2 0.6 68,807 4,602 9.9 0.7 –1,506 –0.2

South Carolina . . . . . . 341,719 9,717 11.9 0.3 335,492 9,622 11.6 0.3 –6,227 –0.4

South Dakota . . . . . . . 43,281 2,764 8.6 0.6 45,753 3,665 9.0 0.7 2,472 0.3

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . 515,808 11,118 12.8 0.3 533,193 11,713 13.1 0.3 *17,385 0.3

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,549,366 23,094 10.0 0.1 1,532,691 22,256 9.8 0.1 –16,675 *–0.2

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,896 7,058 7.8 0.4 134,701 6,568 7.8 0.4 2,805 0.1

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . 46,336 3,282 11.0 0.8 47,698 3,064 11.4 0.7 1,362 0.4

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . 437,151 11,992 8.7 0.2 449,973 11,462 8.8 0.2 12,822 0.1

Washington . . . . . . . . 438,653 11,194 10.2 0.3 448,492 12,597 10.2 0.3 9,839 0.1

West Virginia . . . . . . . 203,209 6,838 17.2 0.6 197,633 6,479 16.8 0.6 –5,576 –0.5

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . 316,718 7,848 8.6 0.2 320,825 7,356 8.7 0.2 4,107 0.1

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . 35,394 2,831 10.2 0.8 37,999 3,582 10.7 1.0 2,605 0.5

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . 480,184 10,833 19.0 0.4 448,039 10,191 17.6 0.4 *–32,145 *–1.4

– Represents or rounds to zero.

 * Statistically different at the 90 percent confidence level.

1

The numbers and percents shown in this table are for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. This excludes people in correctional facilities, nursing homes, 

other institutions and the armed forces.

 2

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 in 

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

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009, Puerto Rico Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

with disabilities were differentially 

affected by the economic downturn 

due to their lower overall 

employment.7

Of the six disability types, people 

with hearing difficulties had the 

highest employment-to-population 

ratio at 51.1 percent in 2009

(Figure 2). People with independent 

living difficulties had the lowest 

employment-to-population ratio 

at 16.6 percent. For each disability type, the ratio decreased from 

2008 to 2009. People with vision 

difficulty experienced the greatest decline in the employment-topopulation ratio, falling 4.3 percentage points from 42.0 percent 

in 2008 to 37.7 percent in 2009. 

People with self-care difficulty 

experienced the smallest decline 

from 17.7 percent in 2008 to 17.2 

percent in 2009.8

In 2009, 26 states had employmentto-population ratios greater than 

the national estimate while 14 

states and the District of Columbia 

had ratios that were lower than 

the national estimate. As shown 

in Figure 3, areas with low 

employment-to-population ratios 

appear concentrated in the southeastern area of the United States. 

North Dakota had the highest 

employment-to-population ratio for 

people with disabilities at 56.0

percent, not statistically different 

from Wyoming. The District of 

Columbia had the lowest 

employment-to-population ratio 

at 26.8 percent, not statistically 

different from Alabama, Kentucky, 

Michigan, Mississippi, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, and West 

Virginia.

NOTE

In 2008, the Census Bureau 

changed the way it asks about disability status in the ACS. Because 

of this change, 2008 and 2009 

estimates about the population of 

people with disabilities should not 

be compared to ACS disability estimates from prior years. For more 

information see Review of Changes 

to the Measurement of Disability 

in the 2008 American Community 

Survey, available at <www.census

.gov/hhes/www/disability

/2008ACS_disability.pdf>.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

For more information about the 

population of people with disabilities, go to the U.S. Census 

Bureau Web site on disability at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/www

/disability/disability.html>, 

contact the Health and Disability 

Statistics Branch of the U.S. Census 

Bureau at 301-763-9112, or e-mail 

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

For monthly employment statistics 

about people with disabilities, go 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Web site for disability data in the 

Current Population Survey at 

<www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability

.htm>. 

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2008 

and 2009. The resulting estimates 

are representative of the civilian 

Figure 2. 

Employment-to-Population Ratio by Disability Status 

and Type: 2008 and 2009

Note: Data are for the civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 16 to 64 years. 

This excludes people in correctional facilities, nursing homes, other institutions, 

and the armed forces.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009.

2008

2009

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Independent

living difficulty

Self-care

difficulty

Ambulatory

difficulty

Cognitive

difficulty

Hearing

difficulty

Vision

difficulty

With a

disability

No

disability

Percent

 7 The percent decline in the employmentto-population ratio for people with disabilities 

was 9.1 percent, compared with the percent 

decline in the ratio for people without disabilities at 4.4 percent.

 8 The employment-to-population ratio for 

people with self-care difficulty in 2008 was 

not statistically different from the ratio for 

people with independent living difficulty in 

the same year.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

noninstitutionalized population. 

All comparisons presented in this 

report have taken sampling error 

into account and are significant 

at the 90 percent confidence level 

unless otherwise noted. Due to 

rounding, some details may not 

sum to totals. For information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “2009 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation

/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of

_Data_2009.pdf>.

Figure 3.

Employment-to-Population Ratio for the Population With 

a Disability by State: 2009 

United States = 34.7 percent

Comparison of state 

employment-to-population 

ratios to U.S. estimate

Above the U.S. estimate

Not different from 

the U.S. estimate 

Below the U.S. estimate

Note: Data are for the civilian noninstitutionalized population aged 16 to 64 years. This excludes people in correctional facilities, 

nursing homes, other institutions, and the armed forces.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2009. 

MO

FL

IL IN

NY

PA

MI

OH

ME

MA

CT 

AZ

HI

CA

ID

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

DC 

NJ 

VT NH

PR

MT ND

SD

NE IA

WI

OK

UT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

ND

WA

NV

TX

CO

WY

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 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>.