AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY 

DISABILITY VARIABLES IN THE 

AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
American Housing Survey 

Disability Variables in the 

American Housing Survey 

Prepared For: 

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development & Research 

Prepared By: 

Frederick J. Eggers & Fouad Moumen 

Econometrica, Inc. 

Bethesda, Maryland 

Contract No. C-CHI-01030 

Order No. CHI-T0001 

Project No. 1031-000 

November 2011 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... v
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
 

The Concept of Disability ............................................................................................. 1
 

Disability and Large-Scale Statistical Surveys ........................................................... 3
 

Surveys Focusing on Health and Disability ................................................................ 3
 

Surveys Reporting Disability Information in a Non-Health Context ............................ 4
 

Choosing Among the Surveys ..................................................................................... 7
 

AHS and Person-Level Information on Disabilities..................................................... 7
 

AHS and Household-Level Information of Disabilities ................................................ 8
 

Disabilities at the Household Level: AHS vs. ACS ..................................................... 9
 

Housing Characteristics of Households with Persons with Disabilities ................ 13
 

Relationship among AHS Household-Level Disability Variables ............................ 20
 

Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................... 20
 

Conceptual Analysis ................................................................................................ 22
 

Summary of Surveys’ Characteristics and Guidance on Their Use ........................ 27
 

Appendix A ................................................................................................................ A-1
 

Appendix B ................................................................................................................ B-1
 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables and Figures 

Table ES-1: Summary of Key Characteristics of Surveys Using Standard Questions on 

Disabilities..................................................................................................vi
 

Figure 1: ACS Questions on Disabilities ...................................................................... 5
 

Table 1: 2009 Population Counts from the AHS and ACS ......................................... 7
 

Table 2: Differences in Housing Counts, AHS vs. ACS .............................................. 9
 

Table 3: Comparison of Household Level Information on Disabilities: 2009 AHS vs. 

ACS ............................................................................................................ 10
 

Table 4: Incidence of Disability by Household Size .................................................. 13
 

Table 5: Households with Disabilities, by Number of Members with a Disability ...... 14
 

Table 6: Households with Disabilities, by Disability Type ......................................... 15
 

Table 7: Housing Characteristics and Household Income for Households with 

Members with Disabilities ........................................................................... 16
 

Table 8: Correlations among the AHS Household-Level Disability Variables ........... 20
 

Table 9: Principal Components for the Six Household-Level Disability Variables .... 21
 

Table 10: Relationship between Any Disability and the Specific Disabilities .............. 22
 

Table 11: Relationship among Disabilities at the Household Level ............................ 25
 

Table 12: Summary of Key Characteristics of Surveys Using Standard Questions on 

Disabilities .................................................................................................. 28
 

Table A-1: Comparison of Person Level Information on Disabilities: 2009 AHS vs. 

ACS............................................................................................................ A-2
 

Table A-2: Demographic Characteristics of Individuals with Disabilities, AHS vs. 

ACS............................................................................................................ A-3
 

Table A-3: Relationship among Disabilities at the Person Level, AHS vs. ACS ..........A-4
 

Table A-4: Correlation Matrices among the Disability Variables, AHS vs. ACS ..........A-5
 

Table B-1: Counts of Persons with Disabilities 15 Years Old or Older – 

CPS, AHS, and ACS .................................................................................B-1
 

iv 
Executive Summary 

The 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS) included, for the first time, a battery of six questions 

on whether occupants suffer from disabilities. The six questions were taken from the American 

Community Survey (ACS), and the same six questions are used in the Current Population Survey 

(CPS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The National Health 

Interview Survey (NHIS) and selected supplements to SIPP contain more detailed questions on 

disabilities and related health conditions. This paper compares the various surveys that use the 

ACS questions and analyzes the data from the 2009 AHS on disabilities. 

Table ES-1 describes the key features of the AHS, ACS, CPS, and SIPP with respect to the 

questions on disabilities. The AHS is the only survey that tabulates the data at the household 

level and that provides both person-level and household-level variables in its public use file; the 

other surveys tabulate data at the person level and contain only person-level variables in their 

public use file. The AHS does not provide person-level weights and, while the housing unit 

weights can be used to weigh occupants, they produce smaller counts than the counts based on 

person weights in the other surveys. The AHS and ACS ask the questions of the same 

populations, but the CPS and SIPP ask the questions only of persons 15 years old or older. 

Comparisons of both person-level and household-level tabulations from the AHS and the ACS 

reveal that the percentages of persons and households affected by disabilities are substantially 

lower in the AHS than in the ACS. Neither the Census Bureau nor independent researchers have 

systematically examined these differences. The two most plausible explanations available at this 

point are: (1) the ACS asks the full battery about each person in the household, whereas the AHS 

asks the full battery about household members only if the respondent answers positively to a 

question about whether anyone in the household has a disability and (2) the ACS mail 

questionnaire is more private than the AHS’ telephone interview and therefore might elicit fuller 

answers to sensitive questions. Appendix B compares the AHS, the ACS, and the CPS on counts 

and incidence for persons 15 years old and older. All the CPS percentages are higher than those 

of the AHS and lower than those of the ACS. In every case, the CPS percentage is closer to the 

AHS percentage than to the ACS percentage. The recent HUD report on Worst Case Housing 

Needs of People with Disabilities found that the AHS and the NHIS produced similar estimates 

for similar disability concepts. The percentage differences between the AHS and the ACS are 

important and need further analysis. 

Because the AHS does not provide person-level weights, the text uses the AHS data to analyze 

the prevalence of disabilities only at the household level. Appendix A analyzes disabilities at the 

person level using both AHS and ACS data. 

The six questions fall into two groups. Four questions inquire about specific impediments: 

difficulty walking or climbing stairs, difficulty with memory or general cognition, difficulty 

hearing, and difficulty seeing. The remaining two questions examine whether a member of the 

household is restricted in his or her ability to function at home (namely, whether the person is 

able to bathe or dress without assistance) and to function outside the home (namely, the ability to 

v 
vi 

Table ES-1: Summary of Key Characteristics of Surveys Using Standard Questions on Disabilities 

Features ACS AHS CPS 

Standard questions on disabilities 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Heamedre

Additional questions None None Effect of disabilities on 

labor force participation 

Six on labone topaddprocondistopirre

Data collected Person-level Person-level Person-level Per

Public use file variables Person-level only Person- and householdlevel Person-level only PerWeights Person and housing unit Housing unit only Person and housing unit Per

Published tabulations (includes Internet tables) 

Person-level—includes labor force participation by disability 

Household-level Person level—labor force 

participation-related issues only 

No pubava
run errands, such as go to the doctor or shop). Viewed this way, four questions identify the 

causes of a disability, and two questions measure its severity. 

From the perspective of four questions identifying impediments and two questions measuring 

severity, the key findings are: 

1.	 The number of households where one or more members has a disability that prevents him 

or her from performing functions inside or outside of the house is considerably smaller 

than the number of households where one or more members has one or more disabilities. 

a.	 There are 19,182,000 households that have one or more members with a 

disability. This is 17.3 percent of all households. 

b.	 There are 6,206,000 households that have one or more members who have 

difficulty performing functions outside of the house; that is, running errands, such 

as visiting a doctor or shopping. 

c.	 There are 2,969,000 households that have one or more members who have 

difficulty performing functions inside the house, such as bathing or dressing. 

d.	 Taking into account the overlap between having difficulty performing functions 

(inside and outside of the house), there are 6,847,000 households where one or 

more member has a disability that prevents him or her from performing functions 

inside or outside of the house. This is 6.1 percent of all households. 

2.	 At the household level, difficulty performing inside or outside of the house rarely occurs 

independently of other disabilities. 

a.	 Only 7.3 percent of households that report having a member who experiences 

difficulty performing functions outside of the house report no other disability 

among household members. 

b.	 Only 2.2 percent of households that report having a member who experiences 

difficulty performing functions inside the house report no other disability among 

household members. 

3.	 At the household level, having difficulty performing functions outside of the house is 

more commonly the result of having other disabilities than of having difficulty with 

bathing or dressing, and having difficulty with bathing or dressing rarely occurs without 

having difficulty performing errands. 

a.	 Households where one or more members has difficulty performing functions 

outside of the house total 6,206,000, compared to 2,969,000 households that have 

members who have difficulty performing functions inside the house. 

b.	 Only 64,000 households have members who have difficulty performing functions 

inside the house but have no members who have difficulty performing functions 

outside of the house. 

4.	 At the household level, having difficulty walking or climbing stairs is the disability most 

commonly associated with having difficulty performing functions inside or outside of the 

house. 

a. Of the households that have one or more members with difficulty bathing or 

dressing, 89.1 percent have one or more members with difficulty walking. 

vii 
b. Of the households that have one or more members with difficulty running errands, 

70.7 percent have one or more members with difficulty walking. 

5.	 At the household level, having difficulty with memory or cognition is the second most 

common disability associated with having difficulty performing functions inside or 

outside of the house. 

a.	 Of the households that have one or more members who have difficulty with 

bathing or dressing, 47.5 percent have one or more members who have difficulty 

with memory. 

b.	 Of the households that have one or more members who have difficulty running 

errands, 42.4 percent have one or more members who have difficulty with 

memory. 

6.	 At the household level, difficulty with hearing or seeing are infrequently associated with 

the ability to perform functions inside or outside of the house. 

a.	 Among households with one or more members who have difficulty with bathing 

or dressing, only 27.6 percent have members with difficulty hearing, and only 

18.7 percent have members with difficulty seeing. 

b.	 Among households with one or more members who have difficulty running 

errands, only 25.1 percent have members with difficulty hearing, and only 18.7 

percent have members with difficulty seeing. 

Analysis in Appendix A confirms—with both AHS and ACS data—that these same relationships 

hold at the person level. 

There are clear patterns in the incidence among households; these patterns are very similar for 

each of the conditions identified by the six questions and for having any of the six conditions. 

The most important findings are: 

1.	 Among households with one or more members with a disability, 86 percent have only 

one member with a disability. 

2.	 One-third of all households with disabilities are one-person households. 

3.	 Among units in different structure types, the incidence of disabilities is highest among 

households living in mobile homes. The age of the occupants and household income 

probably account for this result. 

4.	 Households in non-metropolitan areas have higher percentages of persons with 

disabilities than households in metropolitan areas. Generally, households in urban 

suburbs have the lowest percentages; this is not true for all of the specific disabilities, but 

these exceptions are statistically insignificant. 

5.	 The incidence of households with members with disabilities is greatest among 

households living in units built prior to 1970 and is lowest for households living in units 

built in 1990 or later. 

viii 
6.	 The incidence patterns associated with household income are the most revealing. The 

percentage of households with one or more members with any disability among 

households who have extremely low incomes (30.6 percent) is more than three times 

greater than the percentage among households who have extremely high incomes (9.8 

percent). The percentages decline monotonically across the income categories. This 

monotonic pattern is repeated in each of the specific disability categories except for a blip 

among the percentages for households with one or more members with a seeing 

disability. The income patterns appear to be related in straightforward ways to other 

patterns in the data. Having a member with a disability limits the income earning 

potential of any household but especially one-member households. Appendix A shows 

that the probability of an individual having a disability increases substantially with age. 

Households over 59 (and particularly those over 74) have lower earned income and lower 

income in general. 

7.	 This income pattern is reflected clearly in three of the four categories that involve the 

quality and affordability of housing. 

a.	 The percentage of households with disabilities is much higher among those renter 

households that live in assisted housing than among those living in market 

housing. 

b.	 The incidence of disability among households also varies systematically with rent 

burden—the ratio of housing costs to income. The percentages increase 

monotonically as the severity of rent burden increases. This monotonic pattern is 

consistent across the various specific disabilities except for a blip in the 

percentages for difficulty with hearing. 

c.	 While the overwhelming majority of housing units are considered adequate using 

the AHS adequacy measure, units that are moderately or severely inadequate have 

higher incidence levels. 

d.	 Overcrowding, however, is not associated with disability. In fact, the incidence of 

disabilities declines with the number of persons per room. This is not surprising, 

since one-third of households with disabilities are one-person households; these 

households, by definition, cannot be overcrowded (i.e., have more than one 

person per room). 

The paper concludes with recommendations to researchers about which survey to use depending 

upon how they want to incorporate information on disabilities into their research. These 

recommendations are tentative because of the unresolved issue about differences between the 

AHS and the ACS in the incidence of disability at the person and household levels. 

ix 
Disability Variables in the American Housing Survey 

Introduction 

In October 2009, Econometrica, Inc., entered into a contract with the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support the American Housing Survey (AHS). Task 

8 of that contract required the Econometrica team to analyze the information collected in the 

2009 national AHS on disability. HUD asked Econometrica to summarize the AHS findings, to 

compare them with surveys with similar questions, and to provide guidance to AHS data users on 

how to interpret these variables. 

In 2009, HUD and the Census Bureau included questions on disability in the AHS survey for the 

first time. The AHS asks a battery of six questions, the content and wording of which are based 

on the questions contained in the American Community Survey (ACS). The questions are asked 

at the person level, and the answers are tabulated at both the person and housing unit level. The 

Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 

also report disability status and use questions based on the ACS questions. Researchers studying 

disability per se would most likely use the much more extensive battery of questions contained in 

the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), conducted by the Census Bureau for the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

The remainder of this report consists of seven sections: 

•	 An overview of the disability concept. 

•	 A comparison across surveys of the questions asked about disability status. 

•	 A discussion of how to choose among the various sources of information on disability. 

•	 A comparison of AHS tabulations at the housing unit level with tabulations in other 

surveys. 

•	 Characteristics of households with members with disabilities from the AHS. 

•	 Patterns in the AHS disability data at the household level. 

•	 A summary comparison of the surveys and recommendations on choice among the 

surveys. 

Appendices contain additional tabulations. 

•	 Appendix A: Comparison of AHS tabulations at the person level with ACS tabulations. 

•	 Appendix B: Comparison of CPS tabulations with AHS and ACS tabulations for persons 

15 years old or older. 

The Concept of Disability 

A “disability” arises when an “impairment” (such as blindness or Alzheimer’s disease) limits a 

person’s ability to carry out a function (such as bathing or dressing) or to participate in an 

activity (such as employment). It is important to distinguish between the impairment and its 

effects and to remember that the effects of an impairment are dependent upon the environment. 

1 
 

For example, the ability of a near-blind person to work may depend upon the existence of special 

transportation facilities and the availability of special reading devices. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) maintains two internationally accepted classification 

systems: the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the International Classification of 

Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF, which was approved by member states in 

2001, is designed to work in consort with the ICD. A useful discussion of the ICF model is 

contained in a paper on disability statistics in the NHIS. 

... we adopt ICF concepts to create operational definitions of disability. The concepts 

used include impairment, activity limitation, participation restriction, and disability (see 

WHO, 2001). A prerequisite to each of these concepts is the presence of a health 

condition. Examples of health conditions are listed in the International Classification of 

Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) and they encompass diseases, injuries, health disorders, 

and other health related conditions. An impairment is defined as a significant deviation or 

loss in body function or structure. For example, the loss of a limb or vision loss may be 

classified as impairments. In some surveys, impairments are defined as long lasting 

health conditions that limit a person’s ability to see or hear, limit a person’s physical 

activity, or limit a person’s mental capabilities. An activity limitation is defined as a 

difficulty an individual may have in executing activities. For example, a person who 

experiences difficulty dressing, bathing or performing other activities of daily living due 

to a health condition may be classified as having an activity limitation. In some surveys, 

activity limitations are identified based upon a standard set of activities of daily living 

questions (ADLs) and/or instrumental activities of daily living questions (IADLs). A 

participation restriction is defined as a problem that an individual may experience in 

involvement in life situations. For example, a working-age person with a severe health 

condition may have difficulty participating in employment as a result of the physical 

environment (e.g., lack of reasonable employer accommodations) and/or the social 

environment (e.g., discrimination). In some surveys, participation restrictions are 

identified by questions that ask whether the person has a long lasting health condition that 

limits his or her ability to work, or whether a health conditions affects his or her ability to 

go outside his or her home to go shopping, to church or to the doctor’s office. 

The final ICF concept that we use is a disability. The term disability is used to 

describe the presence of an impairment, an activity limitation and/or a participation 

restriction. This concept is similar to the definition used in the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA defines a disability as “a physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities, a record of 

such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.”1 

Cornell University’s Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics 

and Statistics has prepared a series of papers on disability statistics in major surveys. While this 

series does not as yet contain an analysis of disability statistics in the AHS, readers will find on 

1

 Benjamin H. Harris, Gerry Hendershot, and David C. Stapleton, A Guide to Disability Statistics from the 

National Health Interview Survey, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and 

Statistics, Cornell University, October 2005, pages 6-7. 

2 
 

 

this Web site user guides that evaluate the disability data found in the ACS, CPS, decennial 

census, NHIS, NHIS disability supplement, Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and SIPP.2 

Readers should also be aware of a study by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., funded by the 

Department of Health and Human Services.3

 While not as detailed as the Cornell studies, this 

report examines a larger number of surveys, including the AHS. It cites supplemental questions 

within the AHS on disabilities in 1978 and 1995. 

Disability and Large-Scale Statistical Surveys 

Surveys Focusing on Health and Disability 

Researchers who are interested in studying the causes and consequences of disabilities should 

rely mainly on the National Health Interview Survey. The NHIS dates back to 1957; it is 

conducted annually by the Census Bureau for the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 

which is part of the CDC.4

 Currently, the survey collects data on approximately 87,500 persons 

from a representative sample of 35,000 households. Since 1997, the NHIS has had four core 

components: Household, Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child.5 

The Household component collects limited demographic information on all of the individuals 

living in a particular house. The Family component verifies and collects additional demographic 

information on each member from each family in the house and collects data on topics including 

health status and limitations, injuries, health care access and utilization, health insurance, and 

income and assets. The Family Core component allows the NHIS to serve as a sampling frame 

for additional integrated surveys as needed. 

From each family in the NHIS, one sample adult and one sample child (if any children are 

present) are randomly selected, and information on each is collected with the Sample Adult Core 

and the Sample Child Core questionnaires. Because some health issues are different for children 

than they are for adults, these two questionnaires differ in some items, but both collect basic 

information on health status, health care services, and health behaviors. 

The most recent description of the NHIS questionnaire applies to the 2010 NHIS. The Family 

Core component of the 2010 NHIS produced person-level variables for all household members. 

A Health Status and Limitation of Activity section focused on disabilities. 

For each family member (with some exclusions for children and youth), information is collected 

on activity limitations, including questions about work limitations; the need for personal 

assistance with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and getting around inside 

the home; and the need for personal assistance with handling routine needs, such as everyday 

household chores, doing necessary business, and shopping or running errands. If any limitations 

2

 http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/sources-userGuides.cfm#nhis. 3

 Gina Livermore, Denise Whalen, Sarah Prenovitz, Raina Aggerwal, and Maura Bardos, Disability Data in 

National Survey, Center for Studying Disability Policy, August 22, 2011. 4

 Information on the NHIS was drawn from its Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/about_nhis.htm#content. 5

 A special supplement on disability was added to the 1994 and 1995 NHIS surveys; see 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/nhis_disability.htm. 

3 
are identified, the respondent is asked to specify the health condition(s) causing the limitation(s) 

and indicate how long he or she has had each such condition. 

More detailed information on disabilities is collected for the Sample Adult and the Sample Child. 

The following description of the relevant section of the Sample Child questionnaire indicates the 

extent of information collected. 

The Child Conditions, Limitation of Activity, and Health Status Section (CHS) of the 2009 

NHIS contains information on conditions, limitations of activity, health status, and mental health. 

The CHS includes questions on the following health conditions: mental retardation, 

developmental delays, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Attention Deficit 

Disorder (ADD), Down’s syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, sickle 

cell anemia, autism, diabetes, arthritis, congenital and other heart disease, asthma, allergies, 

colitis, anemia, ear infections, seizures, headaches, stuttering, and stammering. A question about 

whether the sample child still has asthma is included. This section also contains a question used 

to determine the number of school-loss days reported during the 12 months prior to the 

interview. In addition, respondents were asked about hearing and vision loss; if a health problem 

requires the sample child to use special equipment such as a brace, wheelchair, or hearing aid; 

whether the sample child’s health is better, worse, or the same compared with 12 months ago; 

and whether the sample child currently has a problem that has required prescription medication 

for at least 3 months. Lastly, there are questions about the sample child’s height and weight. 

In 1994 and 1995, the NHIS included a special supplement on disabilities designed to collect 

more extensive information on the disabilities and their effects. 

Surveys Reporting Disability Information in a Non-Health Context 

The other surveys discussed in this paper view a disability as an important demographic 

characteristic that may affect or be related to other information being collected by the survey. For 

example, disability status may have an effect on the extent and type of remodeling carried out by 

homeowners (data collected by the AHS) or on participation in the labor force (data collected by 

the CPS). The collection of information on disabilities is not the primary focus in any of these 

other surveys. 

The long form of the 2000 decennial census contained six questions on disabilities. These 

questions, with modifications, are included in the American Community Survey. The AHS, CPS, 

and SIPP adopted these questions with appropriate modifications. Figure 1 contains the relevant 

questions from the 2011 ACS questionnaire. 

In the context of the WHO model, questions 17a and 17b inquire about specific impediments: 

difficulty in hearing or seeing. These questions are asked of all persons. Questions 18a, 18b, and 

18c inquire about the ability to perform specific activities, such as concentrating or 

decisionmaking, walking up stairs, and bathing and dressing. Questions 18a and 18b involve 

activities that are mostly one-dimensional (cognition and ambulation), whereas Question 18c 

involves activities that require both mental and physical abilities (bathing and dressing). These 

questions are asked of persons 5 years old or older. Question 19 inquires about the ability to 

4 
 

Figure 1: ACS Questions on Disabilities 

5 
 

perform functions outside of the home, such as doing errands or visiting a doctor; these functions 

also require both mental and physical abilities. Question 19 is asked of persons 15 years of age or 

older. The ACS questions represent an effort to collect information in an efficient manner (only 

six questions) on specific impediments and their effects on living in the home and outside of the 

home. 

The AHS, CPS, and SIPP adopted versions of the ACS questions for four reasons: the six 

questions were very carefully designed, reviewed, and tested;6

 they cover the most important 

disability characteristics; they impose minimal burden on respondents; and the consistency in 

questionnaire design makes it easier to combine information from multiple sources on how 

disabilities affect other economic and demographic variables. 

Because of its labor market focus, the CPS contains a seventh question that focuses on the 

relationship between disability and participation in the labor force: 

Do you have a disability that prevents you from accepting any kind of work during the 

next six months? 

The long form of the 2000 decennial census included a similar question, but survey design and 

enumerator issues invalidated this measurement for Census 2000.7 Similar questions were 

included in the 2005 and 2006 ACS questionnaires but were omitted after 2006. 

SIPP is a panel survey in which the same households are interviewed in successive waves. The 

SIPP “questionnaire” consists of a set of core questions that are asked in each wave and a series 

of topical modules that are asked as part of specific waves. The mix of topical modules changes 

with each SIPP panel, and not all modules are asked of each panel. The six questions are 

generally included in one of the topical modules. In addition, past SIPPs have had a topical 

module that explores in greater detail the relationship between disabilities and employment. The 

module looks at how health conditions limit the ability to work. The module asks about 29 

specific health conditions, including hearing and vision problems, AIDS, cancer, and loss of 

limbs. An “other” category forms the 30th question in this sequence. 

All the surveys ask the six questions at the person level. The AHS and ACS follow the same age 

structure in asking the questions: all persons are queried about problems with hearing and vision; 

persons 5 years old or older are queried about problems with cognition, walking, and bathing and 

dressing; and persons 15 years old or older are asked about problems with errands. The CPS and 

SIPP ask the disability questions only of persons 15 years old or older. 

An important distinction is how the surveys report the information. The AHS reports information 

on disabilities at both the person and the household level. The ACS, CPS, and SIPP report 

information on disabilities only at the person level. 

6

 See Brault, Matthew W. 2009. Review of Changes to the Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American 

Community Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 7

 The long form of the 1990 decennial census included a similar question about the relationship between disability 

and employment. The only other questions about disability in the 1990 long form dealt with the effects of disabilities 

on the ability to bathe or dress and the ability to run errands outside the home. 

6 
 

 

Choosing Among the Surveys 

Two broad guidelines are obvious: 

Researchers interested in how various health conditions create impediments that restrict 

the ability of individuals to perform certain functions or participate in various activities 

should use the NHIS because this survey contains very detailed information on the causes 

and consequences of disabilities. 

Researchers interested in how disabilities affect specific variables should choose the 

survey that focuses on those variables. CPS or SIPP are the obvious choices for research 

into the effects of disabilities on employment, and the AHS is the obvious choice for 

research into the effects of disabilities on housing needs and choices. 

Starting from these simple guidelines, we will now compare using the disability information in 

the AHS to using that in other surveys under specific conditions. 

AHS and Person-Level Information on Disabilities 

Compared to the ACS, the AHS suffers from several disadvantages for person-level analysis. 

The major disadvantage is the absence of person-level weights. For the AHS, the Census Bureau 

provides only housing unit weights (PWT, WGT90GEO, or WEIGHT), while the ACS provides 

both person-level weights (PWGTP) and housing unit weights (WGTP).8 Table 1 compares 

population counts using the AHS and the ACS; the counts are for persons not living in group 

homes. The ACS count in the bottom line of the Table is derived by multiplying the number of 

persons in a household by the weighted number of households with that number of persons. The 

AHS and the ACS provide very similar population counts when the ACS uses housing unit 

weights just like the AHS does. However, when the ACS uses population weights, its estimate of 

the population is much closer to the official Census estimate. 

Table 1: 2009 Population Counts from the AHS and ACS 

Source Number of persons in housing units 

American Housing Survey 283.1 million 

American Community Survey (person weights) 298.7 million 

American Community Survey (housing weights) 285.6 million 

Another unique advantage of the ACS is the provision of information on disabilities for persons 

living in group quarters. The ACS disability counts provided by the Census Bureau online 

through American Fact Finder are based on the civilian non-institutional population, which 

includes persons living in households and persons living in non-institutional group quarters, a 

group totaling 301.5 million persons in 2009. One can obtain counts for persons living in 

8

 The capitalized expressions are variable names from the AHS and ACS public use files, respectively. The AHS has 

three weights, a pure weight (PWT), a weight based on 1980 geography (WEIGHT), and a weight based on 1990 

geography (WGT90GEO). 

7 
households only, for persons living in group quarters, and for all persons by using the ACS 

public use file (PUF). 

Appendix A shows that the AHS and the ACS produce different estimates of the proportion of 

persons with specific disabilities. The ACS estimates are conceptually better because they use 

population weights, whereas the AHS estimates use housing weights. The estimates differ for 

other reasons. The AHS reports refusals and “don’t know” responses, but the Census Bureau 

imputes answers when ACS encounters refusals or “don’t know” responses. American Fact 

Finder indicates that 7 to 10 million of the 301 million in the 2009 ACS-tabulated responses 

were imputed. Finally, there are important data collection differences between the AHS and the 

ACS. The AHS relies mainly on telephone interviewing, while the ACS relies mainly on mail 

questionnaires. The length of the questionnaire and the sequences of questions also differ 

between the two surveys. 

AHS and Household-Level Information of Disabilities 

The AHS is the only survey among those discussed above that tabulates the person data at the 

household level and that provides household-level variables in its PUF. Household-level 

tabulations can be produced from the PUFs of the other surveys; however, most researchers 

would only consider the ACS as an alternative to the AHS for household-level information 

because the CPS and SIPP ask the disability question only of persons 15 years old or older. The 

NHIS can also be used to produce household estimates, but its greater detail on disabilities and 

health issues makes it more difficult to use. 

The choice between the AHS and the ACS depends upon the goals of the research, as each 

survey has it strengths and weaknesses. 

AHS strengths include: 

•	 Household-level variables already exist. 

•	 Survey collects more detailed information on both housing unit and household 

characteristics. 

•	 Data collection by telephone interviews allows for more probing and interaction with 

respondents during editing. 

•	 No imputations for refusals or “don’t know” responses – for users who prefer no 

imputations. 

ACS strengths include: 

• Much larger sample size allows analysis at the state and metropolitan area levels. 

• Imputations for refusals or “don’t know” responses – for users who prefer imputations. 

The next section compares household-level tabulations from the AHS and the ACS for 2009. 

8 
 

 

Disabilities at the Household Level: AHS vs. ACS 

Before comparing the two surveys, a brief discussion is required about the differences between 

the AHS and the ACS in reporting the basic housing counts. Table 2 compares the counts from 

the two surveys of the housing stock, occupied housing units, and vacant units for 2009. By 

definition, the number of occupied housing units equals the number of households. The two key 

differences between the surveys involve the treatment of seasonal units and how vacancies are 

estimated. The AHS divides the housing stock into seasonal and year-round units and then 

divides year-round units into occupied and vacant units. The ACS classifies units occupied less 

than 2 months as vacant units if all the occupants have other residences. Among the types of 

vacant units recorded by the ACS are units that are “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional 

use.” In 2009, this group numbered 4,706,000, which was approximately equal to the number of 

seasonal units reported by the AHS. If we adjust the AHS count of vacant units to include 

seasonal units, the AHS counts roughly 2 million more vacant units than the ACS. The ACS has 

a known bias in estimating vacancy. The ACS provides this guidance on vacancy: “The data on 

vacancy status were obtained only for a sample of cases in the computer-assisted personal 

interview (known as “CAPI”) follow-up by field representatives. Data on vacancy status were 

obtained at the time of the personal visit.” Vacant units had 2 months to become occupied before 

the ACS conducted a field interview; therefore, ACS vacancy rates should be lower than AHS 

vacancy rates. Because both surveys use roughly the same count of the housing stock, the 

underestimation of vacancies by ACS results in an overestimate of occupied housing units or 

households.9 

Table 2: Differences in Housing Counts, AHS vs. ACS10 

AHS ACS AHS-ACS 

Housing Stock 130,112,000 129,950,000 162,000 

Year-round 125,494,000 NA 

Occupied 

(households) 111,806,000 113,616,000 -1,810,000 

Vacant 13,688,000 16,334,000 -2,646,000 

Seasonal 4,618,000 NA 

Vacant + seasonal 18,306,000 16,334,000 1,972,000 

Table 3 compares the incidence of various disabilities among households in 2009 using data 

from the PUFs from the 2009 AHS and the 2009 ACS. The Census Bureau collects information 

on disabilities at the person level; it puts variables that indicated whether a household has a 

member with a specific disability on the AHS PUF but not on the ACS public use microdata 

sample (PUMS). To produce the ACS portion of Table 3, we merged the housing and person 

ACS PUMS files and created variables that reproduce the information found on the AHS PUF. 

9

 This issue is discussed in greater detail in Comparison of Housing Information from the American Housing Survey 

and the American Community Survey by Frederick Eggers, a report prepared by Econometrica, Inc., for HUD in 

2007. See pages 12-14. Found under technical supplements at 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/ahsprev.html. 10 The counts in Table 2 come from American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009, Table 1-1, and from 

Tables B25002 and B25004 for the 2009 ACS on American Fact Finder. 

9 
Table 3: Comparison of Household Level Information on Disabilities: 2009 AHS vs. ACS 

Type of disability* 

AHS A

With 

disability 

All who 

responded 

Refused or 

Don't 

Know 

Percent Maximum 

percent 

With 

disability 

Hearing 6,077,000 110,927,000 877,000 5.5% 6.2% 9,124,000 11

Seeing 2,993,000 110,893,000 917,000 2.7% 3.5% 5,502,000 11

Memory & related 5,817,000 110,847,000 956,000 5.2% 6.1% 10,474,000 11

Walking 11,651,000 110,895,000 911,000 10.5% 11.2% 16,137,000 11

Care 2,969,000 110,899,000 907,000 2.7% 3.5% 6,024,000 11

Errands 6,206,000 110,996,000 813,000 5.6% 6.3% 10,642,000 11

Any Disability 19,182,000 110,803,000 1,003,000 17.3% 18.1% 27,678,000 11

*The AHS and ACS samples are so large (45,000 and 1,275,000, respectively) that all the percentage differences are highly statistically 

10 
	 	

 

As explained, the ACS reports a larger number of households, 113.6 million (compared with 

110.9 million). The methodological differences discussed in the preceding paragraph should not 

affect the percentage estimates because, in the case of both surveys, the Census Bureau derives 

percentage estimates from the survey data and then applies the percentages to the relevant totals 

to produce the count estimates. 

Table 3 shows that the ACS consistently reports a higher percentage of households having one or 

more members with a disability. According to the AHS, 17.3 percent of households contain a 

member with some disability; the ACS reports 24.4 percent. The ACS estimates range from onethird larger (14.2 percent vs. 10.5 percent for difficulty with walking) to almost twice as large 

(5.3 percent vs. 2.7 percent for difficulty with bathing or dressing). Appendix A demonstrates 

that the ACS also finds a higher percentage of persons with disabilities than does the AHS. 

The ACS PUMS data contain no refusals or “don’t know” responses because the Census Bureau 

imputes answers when the respondent fails to answer the disability question. Perhaps this 

imputation process contributes to the differences between the two surveys. Under the AHS, the 

“maximum percent” column is the ratio of the households that report having a member with a 

specified disability plus the households that refused to answer the question or answered they did 

not know to the total number of households questioned (including those that did not provide a 

“yes or no” answer). Even if one assumes all the refusals or “don’t know” responses conceal 

households with disabled members, the AHS estimates would still be substantially smaller than 

the ACS estimates. 

Teresa Souza discovered this disparity some months before we did.11 She tried to determine 

which set of estimates was more believable by looking at a subset of the households that should 

be receiving public assistance if the household had a member with a disability. For these 

households, she calculated the following ratio for both the AHS and the ACS: 

஻ = ݏ݁ݒ݅ݐ݅ݏ݋݌ ݁ݏ݂݈ܽ ݂݋ ݁ݐܴܽ ஺ି஻)

)

, where 

A = the number of households that both report receiving a specific type of assistance related 

to a disability and report having a member with a disability 

B = the number of households that report receiving a specific type of assistance related to a 

disability 

Souza concluded that the ACS had a lower incidence of false positives; in other words, the ACS 

has a smaller share of households that report having an income source proxy associated with 

disabilities but that do not answer positive to at least one of the six questions about disabilities. 

This was true for three of the four sources of assistance she studied and for the reception of any 

of the four forms of assistance. For example, among very low income, nonelderly families 

without children, the ACS had a 4.5 percent rate of false positives for Supplemental Security 

Income compared to a 39.3 percent rate for the AHS. However, for the same group, the rate of 

11 Email from Teresa Souza to David A. Vandenbroucke on December 1, 2010. 

11
 
 

 

 

false positives for “retirement, survivor, or disability” payments (remember this group is 

nonelderly) was 63.8 percent for the ACS and 36.5 percent for the AHS. 

In her email, Souza suggested two reasons why the AHS might underreport disabilities: 

Different survey contexts affect results. For example, respondents are more likely to say 

yes to disability questions that are within health-related surveys than when those same 

questions are included in a survey with a different context. Because AHS focus more on 

housing characteristics than population characteristics, it might lead to more underreporting in the context of AHS. 

Different mode of collection. The personal and telephone interviewing used by AHS 

might make respondents uncomfortable disclosing information on disabilities. 

Mathew Streeter of the Census Bureau has also suggested that telephone interviews may 

discourage the reporting of disabilities. Streeter put forward another idea that may be an 

important explanation. He noted that the ACS paper questionnaire asks the battery of six 

questions for each household member. In the case of the AHS, the interviewer asks the 

respondent if anyone in the household has a disability. If the answer is no, then no further 

questions are asked. It is possible that having to answer the six questions for each person in the 

ACS causes the respondent to think more carefully about the situation of each household 

member and acknowledge the existence of a disability or disabilities that he or she might 

overlook in an off-the-cuff response to the general question used in the AHS.12 

Our uninformed prior is that the AHS estimate that 17.3 percent of households contain one or 

more members with disabilities is more credible than the ACS estimate of 24.4 percent. The only 

Census Bureau study of the accuracy of the ACS estimates that the authors are aware of was 

conducted before the Census Bureau revised the disability questions in 2008. That study 

suggests that the ACS may underestimate disabilities at the person level.13 

Appendix B compares the AHS, the ACS, and the CPS on counts and incidence for persons 15 

years old and older. All the CPS percentages are higher than those of the AHS and lower than 

those of the ACS. In every case, the CPS percentage is closer to the AHS percentage than to the 

ACS percentage. Comparisons of AHS estimates with household-level estimates computed 

using NHIS can be found in a 2011 HUD study.14 The following quote from that study compares 

estimates from the two surveys for nonelderly households where the surveys asked comparable 

questions: 

...concerning questions pertaining to activity limitation that use similar concepts, the 

NHIS and AHS estimates are, in fact, very similar. For example, in 2009, in questions 

12 Email from Mathew Streeter to Tamara Cole, August 10, 2011. 13 For a discussion of that study, see Robert R. Weathers II, A Guide to Disability Statistics from the American
 

Community Survey, Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University, May 2005, page 32. 14 Maria Teresa Souza, 2009 Worst Case Housing Needs of People with Disabilities, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, March 2011, on pages 14-15. 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/affhsg/wcn_disability.html 

12
 
 

related to ADL, the AHS estimates that 1.2 million households have a nonelderly 

individual who has serious difficulty dressing or bathing, and the NHIS estimates 1.1 

million households have a nonelderly individual who needs help with bathing and 

dressing. In questions related to IADL, the AHS estimates that 2.5 million households 

have a nonelderly individual who has difficulty doing errands alone (visiting 

a doctor’s office or shopping), and the NHIS estimates the same number of households 

have a nonelderly individual who has difficulty handling routine needs (household 

chores, doing necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes). 

Despite slight differences in wording, these surveys arrive at very similar estimates in the 

number of households that include nonelderly people with these self-care and 

independent living limitations....{italics in original} 

The magnitude of the differences between the household estimates derived from the AHS and the 

ACS deserve further research. 

Housing Characteristics of Households with Persons with Disabilities 

This section uses the information in the AHS to examine the housing and economic 

characteristics of households who have members with disabilities. Because this analysis is at the 

household level, we do not report demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, or race, as these 

characteristics would apply to the householder but not necessarily to the household member or 

members with a disability. Appendix A, which focuses on person-level analysis, contains these 

results using AHS data. Tables 4, 5, and 6 provide a general overview of the disability situation 

at the household level. Table 7 provides information on the housing type and condition and 

household income by type of disability. 

Table 4: Incidence of Disability by Household Size 

Number of persons in 

household 

Household has a member 

with a disability 

Percent of answering 

households with n persons 

1 6,178,000 20.8% 

2 7,078,000 19.3% 

3 2,704,000 15.5% 

4 1,661,000 10.6% 

5 892,000 12.6% 

6 392,000 15.2% 

7 or more 278,000 18.1% 

All households 19,182,000 17.3% 

Table 4 records the incidence of having a member with a disability by household size. Oneperson and two-person households have the highest incidence of disability; roughly one out of 

five of the one-person and two-person households have a member with a disability. Of course, in 

a one-person household, the only member is the member with the disability. Four- and five13
 
 

person households have the lowest incidence of disability. All of the percentages are statistically 

different from the overall incidence level of 17.3 percent.15 

The incidence levels reported in Table 4 seem counterintuitive, as households with more 

members would appear to be more likely to have a member with a disability. As Appendix A 

shows, the likelihood of a person having a disability depends upon such factors as the age of the 

person. Larger households tend to have younger members and therefore members less likely to 

have a disability. 

Table 5 examines the extent to which households have multiple members with disabilities. 

Among households with disabilities, 86 percent have only one member with a disability; only 1.3 

percent of households with disabilities have three or more members with a disability. 

Table 5: Households with Disabilities, by Number of Members with a Disability 

Households with disabilities 19,182,000 

Percent of 

households 

with 

disabilities 

Percent of all 

households 

1 person with 1 or more disabilities 16,504,000 86.0% 14.8% 

2 persons with 1 or more disabilities 2,429,000 12.7% 2.2% 

3 persons with 1 or more disabilities 199,000 1.0% 0.2% 

4 persons with 1 or more disabilities 32,000 0.2% 0.0% 

5 persons with 1 or more disabilities 15,000 0.1% 0.0% 

7 persons with 1 or more disabilities 3,000 0.0% 0.0% 

Table 6 breaks down households with disabilities by type of disability. Because a household 

member may have more than one disability or a household may have two or more members with 

different disabilities, the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. The most common disability 

involves problems walking or climbing stairs; 60.7 percent of the households with disabilities 

report having a member with this disability. Roughly one-third of households with disabilities 

report one or more members with difficulty running errands, difficulty hearing, or difficulty with 

memory or other cognitive functions. Approximately 16 percent of households have a member 

who experiences difficulty seeing or difficulty bathing or dressing. 

The rest of this section looks at the characteristics of the housing occupied by households who 

have members with disabilities and at the income of these households. We report the 

characteristics for households who have members with any disability and for households who 

have members with specific disabilities where appropriate. 

15 The t-statistics are all larger than 3.0. 

14
 
 

 

Table 6: Households with Disabilities, by Disability Type 

Households by disability types 

Percent of 

households with 

disabilities 

Percent of all 

households 

Any 19,182,000 17.3% 

Difficult walking 11,650,675 60.7% 10.4% 

Difficulty running errands 6,205,694 32.4% 5.6% 

Difficulty hearing 6,076,516 31.7% 5.4% 

Memory or cognitive difficulties 5,817,112 30.3% 5.2% 

Difficulty seeing 2,993,244 15.6% 2.7% 

Difficult with bathing or dressing 2,968,650 15.5% 2.7% 

Table 7 contains counts of households with various types of disabilities and translates the counts 

into percentages by dividing the counts by the number of households who responded to the 

specific question.16 The first two columns report households with one or more members with any 

disability; we will discuss the results for these two columns only because the patterns revealed in 

these columns apply with only a few exceptions to the other six pairs of columns. We will note 

the exceptions. 

A higher percentage of renter-occupied households have members with disabilities than owneroccupied households, although the difference is small. Among units in different structure types, 

the percentage of households with one or more members with a disability is highest among 

households living in mobile homes. The age of the occupants and household income probably 

account for this result. Households in single-family attached units have the lowest percentage of 

households with disabilities.17 

16 The total number of households is used as the denominator in calculating the percentage of households that
 

contain one or more members with any disability. 

17 The differences between the percentage for mobile homes and all households and between households in singlefamily attached units and all households are both strongly statistically significant for the any disability column. 

David A. Vandenbroucke pointed out to us that households that have a member with a disability, particularly 

difficulty walking, might avoid units with multiple floors and narrow hallways. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Housing Characteristics and Household Income for Households with Members 

with Disabilities 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Tenure Structure type 

Owneroccupied Renteroccupied 

Singlefamily, 

detached 

Singlefamily, 

attached 

Multiunit 

structure 

Mobile 

home 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 12,950 6,234 12,240 750 4,441 1,754 

Percent of respondents 17.3 17.1 17.8 16.9 12.7 17.3 25.8 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 7,880 3,771 7,298 447 2,791 1,115 

Percent of respondents 10.4 10.4 10.7 10.1 7.6 10.9 16.4 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 4,140 2,065 3,898 256 1,502 550 

Percent of respondents 5.6 5.5 5.9 5.4 4.3 5.8 8.1 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 4,498 1,578 4,168 218 1,130 561 

Percent of respondents 5.4 5.9 4.5 5.7 3.7 4.4 8.2 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 3,498 2,320 3,524 253 1,441 600 

Percent of respondents 5.2 4.6 6.6 4.9 4.3 5.6 8.8 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 1,940 1,053 1,860 128 698 306 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.7 4.5 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 2,038 931 1,949 134 648 238 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.5 3.5 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Location 

Central city Suburbs, 

urban 

Suburbs, 

rural 

Non-metro, 

urban 

Non-metro, 

rural 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 5,273 5,857 2,607 1,843 3,602 

Percent of respondents 17.3 16.4 15.3 16.9 21.9 21.7 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 3,275 3,493 1,574 1,119 2,190 

Percent of respondents 10.4 10.2 9.1 10.2 13.3 13.2 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 1,795 1,921 755 586 1,148 

Percent of respondents 5.6 5.6 5.0 4.9 7.0 6.9 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 1,429 1,845 871 592 1,340 

Percent of respondents 5.4 4.4 4.8 5.6 7.0 8.1 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 1,741 1,759 736 534 1,047 

Percent of respondents 5.2 5.4 4.6 4.8 6.3 6.3 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 860 898 305 331 599 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.0 3.9 3.6 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 919 895 389 230 537 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 3.2 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Housing Characteristics and Household Income for Households with Members 

with Disabilities (continued) 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Year structure built 

Before 1950 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or later 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 4,389 4,951 6,068 3,775 

Percent of respondents 17.3 18.8 19.9 17.3 13.7 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 2,644 3,188 3,703 2,115 

Percent of respondents 10.4 11.3 12.8 10.6 7.7 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 1,426 1,704 1,930 1,146 

Percent of respondents 5.6 6.1 6.8 5.5 4.1 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 1,293 1,597 1,880 1,306 

Percent of respondents 5.4 5.5 6.4 5.4 4.7 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 1,361 1,438 1,821 1,197 

Percent of respondents 5.2 5.8 5.8 6.6 4.3 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 709 812 914 557 

Percent of respondents 2.7 3.0 3.3 2.6 2.0 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 650 842 941 535 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.8 3.4 2.7 1.9 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Assistance status (rentals) Persons per room 

Assisted Unassisted 1.0 < persons 

per room 

1.0 < persons 

per room < 1.5 

1.5 < persons 

per room 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 1,840 4,394 18,810 324 43 

Percent of respondents 17.3 38.1 14.5 17.4 15.2 11.8 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 1,224 2,547 11,500 128 24 

Percent of respondents 10.4 25.3 8.4 10.6 6.0 6.5 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 688 1,378 6,114 89 2 

Percent of respondents 5.6 14.2 4.5 5.6 4.2 0.7 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 389 1,189 5,988 80 8 

Percent of respondents 5.4 8.0 3.9 5.5 3.8 2.2 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 703 1,617 5,656 143 18 

Percent of respondents 5.2 14.6 5.3 5.2 6.7 5.1 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 315 739 2,871 118 4 

Percent of respondents 2.7 6.5 2.4 2.6 5.5 1.2 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 320 610 2,912 52 4 

Percent of respondents 2.7 6.6 2.0 2.7 2.5 1.2 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7: Housing Characteristics and Household Income for Households with Members 

with Disabilities (continued) 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Relative household income 

Extremely 

low 

income 

Very 

low 

income 

Low 

income 

Moderate 

Income 

High 

income 

Very 

high 

income 

Extremely 

high 

income 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 5,143 3,834 1,390 2,106 1,567 1,321 3,821 

Percent of respondents 17.3 30.6 25.3 19.4 17.3 15.0 13.0 9.8 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 3,363 2,606 817 1,245 886 705 2,030 

Percent of respondents 10.4 20.0 17.2 11.4 10.2 8.5 6.9 5.2 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 1,882 1,342 444 691 474 356 1,016 

Percent of respondents 5.6 11.2 8.8 6.2 5.7 4.5 3.5 2.6 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 1,333 1,174 516 717 560 403 1,373 

Percent of respondents 5.4 7.9 7.7 7.2 5.9 5.4 4.0 3.5 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 1,743 1,131 415 646 464 387 1,032 

Percent of respondents 5.2 10.4 7.4 5.8 5.3 4.4 3.8 2.7 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 883 657 251 260 249 192 501 

Percent of respondents 2.7 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.3 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 877 599 195 312 244 158 584 

Percent of respondents 2.7 5.2 3.9 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.6 1.5 

All counts in thousands 

All 

households 

Rent burden 

Gross rent 

< 20% 

income 

20% < 

gross rent 

< 30% 

30% < 

gross rent 

< 40% 

40% < 

gross rent 

< 50% 

50% < 

gross rent 

< 70% 

70% < 

gross rent 

< 100% 

100% < 

gross rent 

Any disability 

Households 19,182 6,567 3,960 2,427 1,450 1,559 1,047 1,941 

Percent of respondents 17.3 15.0 15.9 17.3 19.2 20.9 23.2 27.0 

Difficulty walking 

Households 11,651 3,790 2,411 1,496 919 1,004 652 1,247 

Percent of respondents 10.4 8.7 9.7 10.6 12.1 13.4 14.4 17.3 

Difficulty running errands 

Households 6,206 1,910 1,252 817 449 544 420 747 

Percent of respondents 5.6 4.4 5.0 5.8 5.9 7.3 9.3 10.4 

Difficulty with hearing 

Households 6,077 2,446 1,150 702 450 417 257 604 

Percent of respondents 5.4 5.6 4.6 5.0 5.9 5.6 5.7 8.4 

Difficulty with memory 

Households 5,817 1,774 1,192 793 466 505 349 636 

Percent of respondents 5.2 4.1 4.8 5.6 6.2 6.8 7.7 8.8 

Difficulty with seeing 

Households 2,993 914 650 407 219 257 177 335 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.7 

Difficulty with care 

Households 2,969 988 569 359 209 241 194 368 

Percent of respondents 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.2 4.3 5.1 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

Households in non-metropolitan areas have higher percentages of persons with disabilities than 

households in metropolitan areas.18 Generally, households in urban suburbs have the lowest 

percentages, but this is not true for all of the specific disabilities, although these exceptions are 

statistically insignificant. The incidence of households with members with disabilities is greatest 

among households living in units built prior to 1970 and is lowest for households living in units 

built in 1990 or later. 

The incidence patterns associated with household income are the most revealing. The eighth 

panel in Table 7 uses data from HUD’s Housing Affordability Data System (HADS) on the ratio 

of household income to local area median income.19 The percentage of households with one or 

more members with any disability among households with extremely low incomes (30.6 percent) 

is more than three times greater than the percentage among households with extremely high 

incomes (9.8 percent). The percentages decline monotonically across the income categories. This 

monotonic pattern is repeated in each of the specific disability categories, except for a blip 

among the percentages for households with one or more members with a seeing disability. 

The income patterns appear to be related in straightforward ways to other patterns in the data. 

The household counts in Table 4 indicate that one-third of all households with disabilities are 

single-person households. Having a member with a disability limits the income earning potential 

of any household but especially of one-member households. Appendix Table A-2 shows that the 

probability of an individual having a disability increases substantially with age. Households over 

the age of 59 (and particularly those over the age of 74) have lower earned income and lower 

income in general. 

This income pattern is reflected clearly in three of the four categories that involve the quality and 

affordability of housing. The percentage of households with disabilities is much higher among 

those renter households that live in assisted housing than among those living in market housing. 

The incidence of disability among households also varies systematically with rent burden—the 

ratio of housing costs to income. The percentage increases monotonically as the severity of rent 

burden increases.20 This monotonic pattern is consistent across the various specific disabilities, 

except for a blip in the percentages for difficulty with hearing. While the overwhelming majority 

18 When metropolitan areas are compared with non-metropolitan areas, the differences for the any disability column
 

are strongly statistically significant. 

19 The categories in this panel are defined as follows: 

• Extremely low income: less than or equal to 30 percent of local area median income. 

• Very low income: incomes greater than 30 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent of local area median 

income. 

• Low income: incomes greater than 50 percent but less than or equal to 60 percent of local area median income. 

• Moderate income: incomes greater than 60 percent but less than or equal to 80 percent of local area median 

income. 

• High income: incomes greater than 80 percent but less than or equal to 100 percent of local area median income. 

• Very high income: incomes greater than 100 percent but less than or equal to 120 percent of local area median
 

income. 

• Extremely high income: incomes greater than 120 percent of local area median income. 20 This analysis is based on the HADS variable BURDEN. The unusual high percentage of households with rent 

burdens greater than 50 percent is examined in Investigating Very High Rent Burdens Among Renters by the authors, 

prepared for HUD by Econometrica, which can be found at 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/2010_high_rent_burdens_v2.pdf. 

19
 
 

 

of housing units are considered adequate using the AHS adequacy measure, units that are 

moderately or severely inadequate have higher incidence levels.21 Overcrowding, however, is not 

associated with disability. In fact, the incidence of disabilities declines with the number of 

persons per room. This is not surprising, since one-third of households with disabilities are oneperson households, and these households, by definition, cannot be overcrowded (that is, have 

more than one person per room). 

Relationship among AHS Household-Level Disability Variables 

As part of this project, HUD requested us to look at the relationship among the AHS variables. 

The specific request was: 

Investigate the clustering of disability types: Which types are typically found together? 

Which types are notable in not being found together? Are there certain kinds of 

disabilities which contribute more to the AHS summary variable (HDSB)? 

We implemented this task in two ways. First, we used statistical techniques to examine how the 

variables interact. Then, we used the conceptual logic that underlies the six questions to 

understand how the variables are connected. While the statistical analysis provides some helpful 

insights, we believe that the conceptual analysis furnishes AHS users with the most useful 

guidance. 

Statistical Analysis 

Table 8 presents the correlations among the six AHS household-level disability variables that 

identify specific types of disabilities. Table 8 does not include the “any disability” variable 

(HDSB) because, at this stage, we are looking at how types of disabilities occur together. 

Table 8: Correlations among the AHS Household-Level Disability Variables 

AHS Weighted correlations Errands Care Walking Memory Hearing Seeing 

Difficulty with running errands 1.00 

Difficulty with personal care 0.53 1.00 

Difficulty walking 0.52 0.43 1.00 

Difficulty with memory 0.41 0.31 0.29 1.00 

Difficulty hearing 0.21 0.16 0.26 0.18 1.00 

Difficulty seeing 0.24 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.22 1.00 

Of the 15 pairwise correlations, only four exceed 0.4, and none exceed 0.6. Difficulty with 

running errands has moderate correlations with difficulty with personal care (0.53), difficulty 

walking (0.52), and difficulty with memory (0.41). The only other noteworthy correlation is 

between difficulty with personal care and difficulty with walking (0.43). What is remarkable is 

how uncorrelated difficulty with hearing and difficulty with seeing are with each other and with 

21 The AHS definition of adequacy is discussed in the latest AHS Codebook on pages 281 and 282. The codebook 

can be found at http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/AHS_Codebook.pdf. 

20
 
 

 

the other disability variables.22 Moreover, except for its modest correlation with difficulty 

running errands, difficulty with memory is also uncorrelated with the other variables. 

To see if one could capture most of the variation among households with respect to disabilities 

with just two or three constructed variables, we ran a principal components analysis over the six 

variables. Table 9 presents the results. 

Table 9: Principal Components for the Six Household-Level Disability Variables 

Principal components variable weights 

One Two Three Four Five Six 

Difficulty with personal care 0.4520 -0.3443 -0.0290 -0.2475 0.6897 0.3734 

Difficulty with running errands 0.5083 -0.2318 0.0346 -0.0984 -0.0377 -0.8220 

Difficulty hearing 0.2874 0.6474 -0.6699 0.1190 0.1795 -0.0556 

Difficulty with memory 0.3900 -0.1289 0.1560 0.8736 -0.0995 0.1840 

Difficulty seeing 0.2881 0.6199 0.7060 -0.1664 0.0636 0.0500 

Difficulty walking 0.4688 -0.0873 -0.1624 -0.3521 -0.6905 0.3815 

Percent of variation explained 41.9% 16.3% 13.1% 12.3% 9.3% 7.2% 

Eigenvalue 2.5113 0.9773 0.7870 0.7372 0.5582 0.4290 

Statistically, the results were not very encouraging. Only one principal component has an 

eigenvalue greater than 1—a standard test for retaining components—and that component 

explained only 41.9 percent of the variation in the data. However, the pattern of coefficients used 

to calculate the components is instructive. 

•	 The first component gives the most weight to personal care, running errands, and 

walking. 

•	 The second component emphasizes hearing and seeing. 

•	 The third component gives weight to those cases where seeing and hearing problems do 

not occur in the same household. 

•	 The fourth component focuses on cases where memory problems occur in the absence of 

other problems. 

•	 The fifth component gives weight to those cases where difficulty with personal care is not 

associated with difficulty walking. 

•	 The sixth component gives weight to those cases where difficulty with personal care or 

difficulty walking is not associated with difficulty running errands. 

The conceptual analysis will show that these components are constructed in a manner that picks 

out the combinations in the data that occur most frequently and that are not overlapping. 

Table 10 looks at the relationship between the “any disability” variable and the six variables 

identifying specific disabilities; it incorporates information from Table 6. This table acts as a 

bridge between the statistical and the conceptual analyses. 

22 Here, “uncorrelated” means the lack of a meaningful relationship, not statistical insignificance. 

21
 
Table 10: Relationship between Any Disability and the Specific Disabilities 

Households by disability types 

Percent of 

households with 

disabilities 

Correlation with the 

“any disability” 

variable 

Any 19,182,000 1.00 

Difficult walking 11,650,675 60.7% 0.75 

Difficulty running errands 6,205,694 32.4% 0.53 

Difficulty hearing 6,076,516 31.7% 0.53 

Memory or cognitive difficulties 5,817,112 30.3% 0.52 

Difficulty seeing 2,993,244 15.6% 0.36 

Difficult with bathing or 

dressing 2,968,650 15.5% 0.36 

At the household level, difficulty walking is the most frequently reported; 60.7 percent of all 

households reporting disabilities report this disability, and this variable has a 0.75 correlation 

with the “any disability” variable. Almost twice as many households report problems with 

walking as report problems with running errands or with hearing. The least reported disability is 

difficulty with bathing or dressing. Four disabilities have correlations greater than 0.5 with the 

“any disability” variable. 

Conceptual Analysis 

The six questions used in the AHS, ACS, and other surveys incorporate the experience gained 

from a long history of collecting information on disabilities and have an internal logic and 

structure. Users of these variables need to understand this logic and structure. The last Census 

Bureau review of these questions took place in 2006 as part of a general review of the ACS 

questionnaire. The report on these questions from that review contains a useful summary of the 

history of disability questions and the logic and structure underlying the six questions. In the 

following extract from that report, emphasis has been added. 

Concepts of disability have been included in decennial censuses as early as 1830, which 

asked whether persons were blind, deaf, or mute. While the term “disability” was first 

used in the 1880 census, its definition was not the same as ones used today. Early 

concepts of disability focused mainly around health conditions like sensory conditions, 

mental conditions, and deformities of limbs and not on the relationship between health, 

functioning, participating in societal activities, and fulfilling appropriate societal roles. 

After the 1910 census, items on health or disability were dropped from the census form, 

not to be seen again for many decades. 

Returning in 1970, disability content focused on limitations to working at a job.... 

In response to concerns from local data users following the 1970 census and the passage 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Committee on Disability and Health of the Federal 

Agency Council stated that there was a need to broaden the disability spectrum for the 

1980 census. This expansion led to the testing of questions on limitations to using various 

22
 
forms of transportation and performing regular housework, schoolwork, and personal 

self-care. These questions were tested in the 1976 National Content Test (NCT).... 

Despite the low reliability of the items tested in the 1976 NCT, the 1980 decennial census 

included work disability and limitations to using public transportation. 

In preparation for the 1990 census, the Census Bureau again included disability items in a 

national content test. The 1986 NCT included questions on the disability status of 

children, work disability status, ability to drive a car, the need for assistance inside and 

outside the home, the prevalence of certain conditions, and the reason for limitation.... 

[these] disability questions continued to exhibit issues with reliability. For the 1990 

census, the decision was made to ask the same work disability question that was asked in 

the 1970 and 1980 censuses; in addition, two questions addressing difficulty going 

outside alone and difficulty taking care of personal needs were also asked. 

By reviewing the results of previous censuses and tests and consulting with other federal 

agencies, the Census Bureau identified several disability measures for the 1996 National 

Content Survey (NCS). Led, in part, by an interest in assessing the impact of the 1990 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the 1996 NCS investigated questions for 

measuring disability in the following areas: child disability, limitations in schoolwork, 

vision impairment, hearing impairment, limitations in walking, limitations in cognitive 

functions, difficulty going outside for errands, use of personal assistance for self-care 

tasks, and work disability. Questions meant to capture these different aspects of disability 

were asked using multiple approaches in four different panels of the survey. 

After reviewing the results of the 1996 NCS in terms of reliability and validity and 

presenting the information to a group of experts, including the Interagency Subcommittee 

on Disability Statistics, the Census Bureau found that still more questions remained and 

the choice was not clear. Hence, another federal interagency work group was convened in 

June 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget and charged with the development 

of a short set of disability questions. The interagency work group faced three tasks in a 

short period of time: (1) measuring disability using a definition in keeping with the ADA, 

(2) meeting the needs of various agencies requiring specific information, and (3) having a 

maximum of six questions. The work group agreed that three domains (sensory, physical, 

and mental/emotional/cognitive) sufficiently represented the broad classification of 

impairments and health conditions that generally resulted in disability. Additionally, the 

work group concluded that it could meet an array of other policy and programmatic 

requirements with three questions on difficulty with specific types of functional activities. 

Their questions intended to address people with limitations in performing the following: 

Activities of Daily Living, which generally include self-care type activities such 

as bathing or dressing; Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, which are activities often 

associated with independent living such as going out alone to shop or visit a doctor’s 

office; and, finally, working at a job or business. The work group’s consensus set of 

questions was put on the Census 2000 long form and on the ACS.... 

23
 
 

As noted previously, the question dealing with the effects of disabilities on ability to work did 

not prove to be useful and was subsequently dropped. 

In advance of the [2006] ACS Content Test, as part of the overall OMB interagency 

efforts, a working group representing several government agencies convened to consider 

disability content in the ACS. The work group established that in past practice agencies 

focused on functional limitations that might result in a person experiencing a limitation in 

participation in normal societal activities. The two primary purposes of the disability data 

are the provision of services (such as VA health benefits) and the provision of 

opportunities in housing, education, and other areas captured in the ACS. Using the 

Institute of Medicine (IOM) Model of Disability and the International Classification of 

Functioning (ICF) Model of Disability, the work group defined disability as the 

restriction in participation that results from a lack of fit between the individual’s 

functional limitations and the characteristics of the physical and social environment. So 

while the disability is not seen as intrinsic to the individual, the way to capture it in a 

survey is to measure components that make up the process. 

In the case of the ACS, the work group attempted to use the small space available to meet 

distinct goals. The group first identified four basic areas of functioning (vision, hearing, 

mobility, and cognitive functioning) that identified the largest component of the 

population of people with disabilities. These domains could be used individually or 

combined in order to assess the equalization of opportunity for people with disabilities. 

Second, the group identified two key elements that could be used for monitoring 

independent living and the need for services. Ability to take care of oneself, specifically 

the ability to bath and dress oneself, and the ability to move around the community 

without assistance were considered appropriate measures.

23 

The six questions fall into two groups. Four questions inquire about specific impediments: 

difficulty walking or climbing stairs, difficulty with memory or general cognition, difficulty 

hearing, and difficulty seeing. The remaining two questions examine whether a member of the 

household is restricted in his or her ability to function at home (namely, whether the person is 

able to bathe or dress without assistance) and to function outside of the home (namely, the ability 

to run errands, such as go to the doctor or shop). 

Table 11 looks at how the two function variables are related to the other four variables and to 

each other at the household level. The relationship is more appropriately assessed at the level of 

the individual because a member of a household could have trouble dressing, while another 

member might be blind, and household-level analysis would suggest that these two conditions 

are related. Table A-3 in Appendix A performs this analysis at the person level using both AHS 

and ACS data. Table 11 uses household-level data because the purpose of this section is to 

interpret the relationship among the AHS’ household-level disability variables. The percentages 

in Table 11 add to more than 100 because the categories can overlap. 

23 Matthew Brault and Sharon Stern, Evaluation Report Covering Disability, 2006 American Community Survey 

Content Test Report P.4, Bureau of the Census, January 3, 2007, pages 2-4. 

24
 
 

 

Table 11: Relationship among Disabilities at the Household Level 

Households 

Percent of 

households 

with a 

functional 

disability 

Person with errands disability 6,206,000 

Errands disability only 454,000 7.3% 

Errands + walking disabilities 4,387,000 70.7% 

Errands + memory disabilities 2,628,000 42.4% 

Errands + care disabilities 2,327,000 37.5% 

Errands + hearing disabilities 1,555,000 25.1% 

Errands + seeing disabilities 1,158,000 18.7% 

Person with care disability 2,969,000 

Care disability only 64,000 2.2% 

Care + walking disabilities 2,644,000 89.1% 

Care + errand disabilities 2,327,000 78.4% 

Care + memory disabilities 1,409,000 47.5% 

Care + hearing disabilities 820,000 27.6% 

Care + seeing disabilities 556,000 18.7% 

When viewed in conjunction with earlier tables, Table 11 provides several clear and important 

insights into disabilities at the household level. 

1.	 The number of households where one or more members has a disability that prevents him 

or her from performing functions inside or outside of the house is considerably smaller 

than the number of households where one or more members has one or more disabilities. 

a.	 There are 19,182,000 households that have one or more members with a disability 

(Table 6). This is 17.3 percent of all households. 

b.	 There are 6,206,000 households that have one or more members who have 

difficulty performing functions outside of the house (running errands, such as 

visiting a doctor or shopping). 

c.	 There are 2,969,000 households that have one or more members who have 

difficulty performing functions inside the house (bathing or dressing). 

d.	 Taking into account the overlap between having difficulty performing functions 

inside and outside of the house, there are 6,847,000 households where one or 

more members has a disability that prevents him or her from performing functions 

inside or outside of the house.24 This is 6.1 percent of all households. 

24 6,206,000 - 2,327,000 + 2,969,000 (rounded after the calculation). 

25
 
 

2.	 At the household level, difficulty performing inside or outside of the house rarely occurs 

independently of other disabilities. 

a.	 Only 7.3 percent of households that report having a member who experiences 

difficulty performing functions outside of the house report no other disability 

among household members. 

b.	 Only 2.2 percent of households that report having a member who experiences 

difficulty performing functions inside the house report no other disability among 

household members. 

3.	 At the household level, having difficulty performing functions outside of the house is 

more commonly the result of having other disabilities than of having difficulty with 

bathing or dressing, and having difficulty with bathing or dressing rarely occurs without 

having difficulty performing errands. 

a.	 Households where one or more members has difficulty performing functions 

outside of the house total 6,206,000, compared to 2,969,000 households with 

members who have difficulty performing functions inside the house. 

b.	 Only 64,000 households have members who have difficulty performing functions 

inside the house but have no members who have difficulty performing functions 

outside of the house.25 

4.	 At the household level, having difficulty walking or climbing stairs is the disability most 

commonly associated with having difficulty performing functions inside or outside of the 

house. 

a.	 Of the households with one or more members who have difficulty bathing or 

dressing, 89.1 percent have one or more members with difficulty walking. 

b.	 Of the households with one or more members who have difficulty running 

errands, 70.7 percent have one or more members with difficulty walking. 

5.	 At the household level, having difficulty with memory or cognition is the second most 

common disability associated with having difficulty performing functions inside or 

outside of the house. 

a.	 Of the households with one or more members who have difficulty bathing or 

dressing, 47.5 percent have one or more members with difficulty with memory. 

b.	 Of the households with one or more members who have difficulty running 

errands, 42.4 percent have one or more members with difficulty with memory. 

6.	 At the household level, difficulty with hearing or seeing are infrequently associated with 

the ability to perform functions inside or outside of the house. 

a.	 Among households with one or more members who have difficulty bathing or 

dressing, only 27.6 percent have members with difficulty hearing, and only 18.7 

percent have members with difficulty seeing. 

b.	 Among households with one or more members who have difficulty running 

errands, only 25.1 percent have members with difficulty hearing, and only 18.7 

percent have members with difficulty seeing. 

25 2,969,000 - 2,327,000 (rounded after the subtraction). 

26
 
Table A-3 in Appendix A confirms—with both AHS and ACS data—that these same 

relationships hold at the person level. 

Summary of Surveys’ Characteristics and Guidance on Their Use 

Table 12 provides a summary of the key features of the four surveys that use the six ACS 

questions: the American Community Survey, the American Housing Survey, the Current 

Population Survey, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. 

Multiple data sets are available to researchers who are interested in the prevalence of disabilities 

and how they affect people and households. The following suggestions are designed to help 

researchers choose between data sets. 

1.	 Researchers interested primarily in the prevalence and causes of disabilities should use 

the National Health Interview Survey because of the extensive detail it collects on health 

conditions and disabilities. 

2.	 Researchers interested in how disabilities affect labor force participation should use the 

Current Population Survey or SIPP. If the emphasis is on labor force participation, then 

the CPS is the better choice because of its larger sample and simpler structure. If the 

emphasis is on the conditions that create difficulty in finding or keeping a job, then one 

of the special SIPP topical modules is the better choice because of the SIPP’s more 

detailed information on health conditions. 

3.	 Researchers interested in how disabilities affect earnings and poverty at the person level 

should use the SIPP because of the detailed information on income; one of the special 

topical modules should be used if more information on the conditions causing a disability 

is required. 

4.	 Researchers interested in the general characteristics of persons with disabilities should 

use the ACS because of its large sample, person-level weights, and imputation of missing 

information. 

5.	 Researchers interested in the general characteristics of households with disabilities can 

use either the ACS or the AHS. The AHS is easier to use because its public use file 

contains household-level variables and does not overestimate the number of occupied 

housing units. The ACS has a larger sample and is available annually, while the AHS is 

available biennially. 

6.	 Researchers interested in how disabilities interact with housing should use the AHS 

because of its extensive details on housing and households. 

With respect to situations number 5 and 6, researchers should be aware that the AHS finds a 

substantially lower percentage of households affected by disabilities than the ACS does. The 

causes of these percentage differences need to be better understood. 

27
 
Table 12: Summary of Key Characteristics of Surveys Using Standard Questions on Disabilities 

Features ACS AHS CPS 

Standard questions on disabilities 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Hearing, seeing, walking, memory, bathing and dressing, running errands 

Heamedre

Additional questions None None Effect of disabilities on 

labor force participation 

Six on labone topaddprocondistopirre

Data collected Person-level Person-level Person-level Per

Public use file variables Person-level only Person- and householdlevel Person-level only PerWeights Person and housing unit Housing unit only Person and housing unit Per

Published tabulations (includes internet tables) 

Person-level—includes labor force participation by disability 

Household-level Person-level—labor force 

participation related issues only 

No pubava

28
 
Appendix A 

We did not report person-level statistics on disability in the text because this paper focuses on the 

disability information in the AHS, and we believe that the ACS is superior to the AHS as a 

source of information on disabilities at the person level. The ACS’ superiority rests on its 

provision of person-level weights, whereas the AHS provides only household-level weights. 

This section compares the disability information from the ACS and the AHS at the person level. 

We emphasize percentages rather than counts because the AHS undercounts persons. Table A-1 

is the counterpart to Table 3 in the text. Table A-1 shows that the ACS consistently reports a 

higher percentage of persons having one or more members with a disability. According to the 

AHS, 7.8 percent of persons have some disability; the ACS reports 11.8 percent. The ACS 

estimates range from 40 percent larger (6.9 percent vs. 4.7 percent for difficult with walking) to 

over twice as large (2.5 percent vs. 1.2 percent for difficulty with bathing or dressing). These 

person-level differences carry over to the household level in Table 3. 

Compared to the ACS, the AHS produces both a lower count of the number of persons and lower 

estimates of the percentage of persons with different disabilities. The difference in counts results 

from the AHS using household weights and the ACS using person weights. The difference in 

percentages most likely results from differences in questionnaire design and in data collection 

procedures. These differences are discussed in the text in the section on “AHS and HouseholdLevel Information of Disabilities,” but, as of yet, what the most important differences are and 

how they create the discrepancies in percentage estimates are not understood. 

Next, we examined whether the AHS and ACS person-level variables relate to one another in 

similar ways. Table A-2 compares data from the AHS and ACS with respect to the demographic 

characteristics of those with disabilities. The first two columns with numerical data are the 

percentages of persons in a particular category who have any disability. The first row contains 

percentages with disabilities among all persons, 7.8 percent from the AHS and 11.8 percent from 

the ACS. This row repeats the percentages in the bottom row of Table A-1. Throughout Table 

A-2, the ACS percentages are higher than the AHS percentages. To make the information in 

Table A-2 more meaningful, the last two columns divide the relevant percentage for each row by 

the corresponding percentage in the first row. For example, the first two columns show that the 

percentages of persons 5 to 14 years old who have disabilities are 2.8 percent in the AHS and 5.1 

percent in the ACS, while the second two columns show that the incidence of disabilities among 

this age group is roughly one-third to two-fifths of the overall incidence. The last row in this 

group shows that persons over the age of 75 are more than four and a half times more likely to 

have a disability than the general population. 

Both surveys show that the probability of having a disability increases sharply with age. The 

increase in relative incidence (the last two columns) is similar for both surveys. Both surveys 

report that females are more likely than males to develop disabilities, most likely because the 

female population has a greater number of older persons. Both surveys report that the relative 

incidence of disabilities is lowest among Asians and Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders and highest 

among American Indians and Native Alaskans. Again, the patterns of relative incidence are 

similar in the two surveys. 

A-1 
Table A-1: Comparison of Person-Level Information on Disabilities: 2009 AHS vs. ACS 

Type of disability* 

AHS A

With 

disability 

All who 

responded 

Refused or 

Don't Know Percent Maximum percent With disability 

Hearing 6,396,000 281,126,000 1,964,000 2.3% 3.0% 10,069,000 29Seeing 3,227,000 281,057,000 2,028,000 1.1% 1.9% 6,302,000 29Memory & related 6,397,000 261,767,000 2,151,000 2.4% 3.2% 12,962,000 27

Walking 12,438,000 261,898,000 2,027,000 4.7% 5.5% 19,032,000 27

Care 3,058,000 261,898,000 2,022,000 1.2% 1.9% 6,866,000 27

Errands 6,594,000 222,564,000 1,827,000 3.0% 3.8% 12,524,000 23

Any Disability** 22,183,000 283,092,000 NA 7.8% NA 35,374,000 29

*Neither the AHS nor the ACS provides a person-level variable that indicates “any disability;” we created this variable for both survey

answers to the individual disability questions. In this row, the “all who responded” column for the AHS is the count of all persons. 

A-2 
 

Table A-2: Demographic Characteristics of Individuals with Disabilities, AHS vs. ACS 

Percent of persons with 

any disability Relative incidence 

AHS ACS AHS ACS 

All persons 7.8% 11.8% 1.00 1.00 

By age 

5 to 14 2.8% 5.1% 0.36 0.43 

15 to 39 years old 3.0% 5.7% 0.38 0.48 

40 to 59 years old 7.3% 12.3% 0.94 1.04 

60-74 years old 16.7% 23.5% 2.13 1.98 

75 years old and older 37.7% 50.4% 4.81 4.26 

By sex 

Male 7.3% 11.4% 0.93 0.96 

Female 8.4% 12.2% 1.07 1.03 

By race 

White only 8.0% 12.1% 1.02 1.03 

Black only 8.2% 13.4% 1.05 1.13 

American Indian, Alaskan Native only 12.0% 16.0% 1.54 1.35 

Asian only 2.8% 6.5% 0.36 0.55 

Hawaiian, Pacific Islander only 5.5% 9.3% 0.70 0.78 

Two or more races 8.7% 11.2% 1.11 0.95 

By ethnicity 

Hispanic 5.0% 8.2% 0.64 0.70 

Non-Hispanic 8.4% 12.5% 1.07 1.06 

By education 

Less than a high school diploma 13.2% 12.5% 1.69 1.05 

High school diploma 11.4% 17.3% 1.45 1.46 

Some college or vocation education 8.5% 12.4% 1.09 1.05 

Associates degree 6.8% 10.4% 0.87 0.88 

Bachelors degree 5.1% 7.0% 0.64 0.59 

Professional, MA, or PhD degree 5.2% 7.2% 0.66 0.61 

Both surveys report low relative incidence of disabilities among Hispanics, a result that once 

again most likely reflects a difference in the age distribution between these two segments of the 

population. Finally, both surveys find that the relative incidence of disability is highest among 

the least educated.26 One could interpret this result as either an effect or a cause of disabilities. 

Having a disability may make it more difficult to finish high school or pursue education beyond 

high school. Alternatively, persons who fail to finish high school and high school graduates have 

substantially lower lifetime income than those who complete college; lower income can lead to a 

greater probability of having a disability due to inadequate health care or the inability to 

26 Both surveys collect information only for persons over the age of 14. 

A-3 
 

purchase devices that allow one to function better with a disability or simply because lower 

income jobs are more dangerous. 

In the analysis of the relationship among disabilities at the household level, we pointed out that 

difficulty running errands and difficulty with bathing and dressing rarely occur alone at the 

household level. These difficulties generally result from other problems, such as difficulty 

walking or using stairs. As explained, the variables were created with this relationship in mind; 

the logic of the relationship applies more directly at the person level than at the household level. 

Table A-3 clearly shows that, at the person level, difficulty running errands and difficulty 

bathing and dressing rarely occur alone. In fact, among persons reporting difficulty with running 

errands, fewer than 10 percent report no other disabilities, and among persons reporting 

difficulty with bathing and dressing, fewer than 3 percent report no other disabilities. 

Table A-3: Relationship among Disabilities at the Person Level, AHS vs. ACS 

AHS Percent of 

total ACS Percent of total 

Person with errands disability 6,594,000 12,524,000 

Errands disability only 601,000 9.1% 1,088,000 8.7% 

Errands + walking disabilities 4,729,000 71.7% 8,712,000 69.6% 

Errands + memory disabilities 2,551,000 38.7% 6,124,000 48.9% 

Errands + care disabilities 2,336,000 35.4% 5,220,000 41.7% 

Errands + hearing disabilities 1,361,000 20.6% 2,680,000 21.4% 

Errands + seeing disabilities 1,093,000 16.6% 2,541,000 20.3% 

Person with care disability 3,058,000 6,866,000 

Care disability only 86,000 2.8% 196,000 2.9% 

Care + walking disabilities 2,653,000 86.8% 5,941,000 86.5% 

Care + errand disabilities 2,336,000 76.4% 5,220,000 76.0% 

Care + memory disabilities 1,338,000 43.8% 3,502,000 51.0% 

Care + hearing disabilities 652,000 21.3% 1,599,000 23.3% 

Care + seeing disabilities 493,000 16.1% 1,463,000 21.3% 

The two panels of Table A-3 show the extent to which persons report difficulty with running 

errands and difficulty with bathing and dressing jointly with other disabilities. Difficulty with 

walking or using stairs appears to be the most important determinant of whether a person can 

perform functions inside and outside of the home. The inability to perform activities outside of 

the house, such as visiting a doctor or shopping, appears to affect more persons than the inability 

to bathe and dress oneself. Moreover, a much larger percentage of those who are unable to bathe 

and dress themselves are unable to run errands than the other way around, suggesting that the 

inability to perform functions inside the home involves limitations that carry over to performing 

functions outside of the home. 

Table A-4 carries our analysis of relationships among the various disabilities to its logical 

conclusion by examining the correlations among the six variables. The correlation matrix from 

the AHS in the top panel is very similar to the correlation matrix from the ACS in the bottom 

A-4 
 

 

panel. The correlations between difficulty with errands and difficulty with personal care are the 

highest. Otherwise, only the correlations between difficulty with walking and two performing 

function variables and difficulty with memory exceed 0.4. 

Table A-4: Correlation Matrices among the Disability Variables, AHS vs. ACS 

AHS Weighted correlations Errands Care Walking Memory Hearing Seeing 

Difficulty with running errands 1.00 

Difficulty with personal care 0.52 1.00 

Difficulty walking 0.51 0.42 1.00 

Difficulty with memory 0.41 0.29 0.26 1.00 

Difficulty hearing 0.19 0.13 0.22 0.15 1.00 

Difficulty seeing 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.19 1.00 

ACS Weighted correlations Errands Care Walking Memory Hearing Seeing 

Difficulty with running errands 1.00 

Difficulty with personal care 0.56 1.00 

Difficulty walking 0.53 0.49 1.00 

Difficulty with memory 0.48 0.35 0.32 1.00 

Difficulty hearing 0.20 0.16 0.24 0.17 1.00 

Difficulty seeing 0.27 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.22 1.00 

While it is interesting to examine the demographic characteristics of those with disabilities and 

the relationship among disabilities, the most important finding is that, despite the substantial 

differences in the detection of disabilities by the AHS and the ACS, the two surveys reveal very 

similar characteristics and patterns. 

A-5 
B-1 

Appendix B We tabulated the CPS counts for persons with disabilities and compared them to AHS and ACS counts for perso

older to see whether the CPS counts and percentages are closer to the AHS or the ACS. Table B-1 presents the retabulations. Table B-1: Counts of Persons with Disabilities 15 Years Old or Older – CPS, AHS, and ACS 

CPS ACS AHS 

Count Percent of population Count Percent of population Count Percent of respondents 

Population -- 15 and older 233,612,000 236,939,000 224,409,000 Any disability** 26,452,000 11.3% 33,144,000 14.0% 20,982,000 9.3% 

Walking disability 15,618,000 6.7% 18,772,000 7.9% 12,348,000 5.5% 

Errands disability 9,336,000 4.0% 12,524,000 5.3% 6,594,000 3.0% 

Memory disability 8,126,000 3.5% 11,365,000 4.8% 5,522,000 2.5% 

Hearing disability 6,914,000 3.0% 9,704,000 4.1% 6,222,000 2.8% 

Seeing disability 3,448,000 1.5% 5,915,000 2.5% 3,045,000 1.4% Care disability 4,418,000 1.9% 6,490,000 2.7% 2,942,000 1.3% 

As expected, the CPS comes much closer to the ACS in its count of persons 15 years old and older because the C

population weights. All of the CPS percentages are higher than those of the AHS and lower than those of the AC

CPS percentage is closer to the AHS percentage than to the ACS percentage.