Older Americans With a Disability: 2008−2012

American Community Survey Reports

Wan He and Luke J. Larsen

Issued December 2014 

ACS-29

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
This report was prepared by Wan He and Luke J. Larsen, under 

the general direction of James D. Fitzsimmons, Acting Assistant 

Division Chief, International Programs Center for Demographic and 

Economic Studies, Population Division. Victoria A. Velkoff, former 

Chief, Population Division provided overall direction. Additional 

direction was provided by Loraine A. West, Acting Chief, Aging 

Studies Branch.

Research for and production of this report were supported under an 

interagency agreement with the Division of Behavioral and Social 

Research, National Institute on Aging (NIA), Richard M. Suzman, 

Director.

The authors are grateful to many people, both within and outside 

the Census Bureau, who have generously provided valuable comments and constructive suggestions. The authors give special thanks 

to Matthew W. Brault, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics 

Division; Elizabeth M. Grieco, Population Division; Marjorie 

Hanson, Office of Demographic Programs; and anonymous reviewers from NIA. The authors are especially grateful to Frank Hobbs

and Bashiruddin Ahmed, Population Division, for their thorough 

review and insightful comments. 

The authors give special thanks to Mary Beth Kennedy, Andrea 

Miles, and Iris Poe, Population Division, for verification, table and 

graph production, and general report preparation. We also thank 

Xiang Li and Hsin Hsing Lee, American Community Survey Office, 

for data verification; Michael D. Starsinic, Decennial Statistical 

Studies Division, for statistical testing review; and Steven G. 

Wilson, Population Division, for cartographic work.

Janet Sweeney, Musbaw Alawiye, and Faye Brock of the Center 

for New Media and Promotion, U.S. Census Bureau, provided publication management, graphics design and composition, and editorial 

review for print and electronic media.

Joel Pugatsky of the Census Bureau’s Administrative and Customer 

Services Division provided printing management.

Acknowledgments
U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker,

Secretary

Bruce H. Andrews,

Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Mark Doms, 

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

John H. Thompson, 

Director

ACS-29

Older Americans With a 

Disability: 2008−2012 Issued December 2014

Issued December 2014 

ACS-29

American Community Survey Reports

Older Americans With a Disability: 2008−2012

Wan He and Luke J. Larsen

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Suggested Citation

He, Wan and Luke J. Larsen,

U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey Reports,

 ACS-29, Older Americans With a 

Disability: 2008–2012, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC, 2014.

Economics and Statistics

Administration

Mark Doms,

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

John H. Thompson,

Director

Nancy A. Potok,

Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer

Enrique J. Lamas,

Associate Director for Demographic Programs

Karen Humes,

Chief, Population Division

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 iii 

Contents

TEXT

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATUS, NUMBER, AND TYPE OF DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Disability status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Number of disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Type of disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . 7

Educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Marital status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Living arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Poverty status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SOURCE AND ACCURACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TEXT BOX

How the ACS Measures Disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

FIGURES

Figure 1. Population Aged 65 and Over by Number of Disabilities 

 and Age: 2008−2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2. Share of Top Nine States Among Total Population Aged 65 

 and Over With a Disability: 2008−2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 3. Percentage With a Disability Among County Population 

 Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 4. Living Arrangements of Population Aged 65 and Over With a 

 Disability by Selected Characteristics: 2008−2012. . . . . . . . 9

Figure 5. Percentage With a Disability and Living Alone Among 

 County Population Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012. . . . . . . 10

Figure 6. Percentage in Poverty Among Household Population Aged 

 65 and Over With a Disability, by Selected Characteristics: 

 2008−2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 7. Percentage With a Disability and Living Below 150 Percent 

 of Poverty Threshold Among County Household Population 

 Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iv Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

TABLES

Table 1. Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Type of Disability, Age, and Sex: 2008–2012. . . . . . 3

Table 2. State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 2008–2012. . . . . . . . 4

Table 3. Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Educational Attainment, Marital 

 Status, and Selected Characteristics: 2008–2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

APPENDIX TABLES

Appendix Table 1. Margin of Error for Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Type of Disability, 

 Age, and Sex: 2008–2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Appendix Table 2. Margin of Error for State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected 

 Characteristics: 2008–2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Appendix Table 3. Margin of Error for Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by 

 Educational Attainment, Marital Status, and Selected Characteristics: 2008–2012. . . . . . . 20
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 1 

HOW THE ACS MEASURES 

DISABILITY

The ACS questions cover six 

disability types:

Hearing difficulty—deaf or 

having serious difficulty hearing.

Vision difficulty—blind or having 

serious difficulty seeing, even when 

wearing glasses.

Cognitive difficulty—because of 

a physical, mental, or emotional 

problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making 

decisions.

Ambulatory difficulty—having 

serious difficulty walking or 

climbing stairs.

Self-care difficulty—having 

difficulty bathing or dressing.

Independent living difficulty—

because of a physical, mental, or 

emotional problem, having difficulty 

doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Respondents who report any one of 

the six disability types are considered to have a disability.

The ACS identifies serious difficulty 

with four basic areas of functioning—hearing, vision, cognition, 

and ambulation. The ACS supplements the functional limitations 

with questions about selected 

activities from the Katz Activities 

of Daily Living (ADL)—difficulty 

dressing and bathing; and from the 

Lawton Instrumental Activities of 

Daily Living (IADL) scales—difficulty 

performing errands, such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping. 

However, the ACS does not gather 

information on the severity or timing of onset of the disability, or on 

the use of technology or assistance.

INTRODUCTION

Disability, as defined by the 

Americans With Disabilities Act, is 

an individual’s physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits 

one or more major life activities of 

that individual.1 Studies consistently 

find that disability rates rise with 

age (Altman and Bernstein, 2008; 

Brault, 2012). Beyond age 65, the 

oldest old (aged 85 and over) are at 

highest risk for disease and disability (National Institutes of Health, 

2010), and among them, disability 

prevalence increases rapidly with 

age (He and Muenchrath, 2011).

Changes in population age structure are contributing to a growing 

number of older people with a disability. In the past several decades, 

the U.S. older population itself has 

been aging—the proportion of the 

oldest-old segment (aged 85 and 

over) of the older population has 

increased from 8.8 percent in 1980 

to 13.6 percent in 2010 (West et 

al., 2014). Given higher prevalence 

rates among the oldest old, this 

changing composition of the older 

population has increased the number with a disability.

Baby Boomers started to enter the 

older age ranks in 2011, and they 

will swell the size of the older 

population in the next 2 decades.2

The number of older people with a 

disability could also expand rapidly. 

Thus, it is important to identify 

those among the older population most at risk for disability in 

order to help older people with a 

disability and their families plan 

1 This definition is from the 2008 

Amendment Act to the Americans With 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). For more 

information, see <www.ada.gov/pubs 

/adastatute08.htm#12102note>. 2 The Baby Boom includes people born 

from mid-1946 to 1964. The Baby Boom is 

distinguished by a dramatic increase in birth 

rates following World War II and comprises 

one of the largest generations in U.S. history.

strategies to deal with daily activity 

difficulties.

In recent decades, the concept 

of disability has shifted from an 

individual, medical perspective 

to a social model in which disability is viewed as the result of 

social and physical barriers (World 

Health Organization and the World 

Bank, 2011). The International 

Classification of Functioning, 

Disability, and Health recognizes 

the value of both models and 

views disability as arising from the 

interaction of health conditions 

and environmental and personal 

factors (Leonardi et al., 2006). The 

U.S. Census Bureau modified the 

American Community Survey (ACS) 

questions on disability starting 

in 2008 to better reflect this new 

paradigm.

This report presents an overview 

of the older population with a disability during 2008–2012. Data 

for this report come from the ACS 

5-year estimates with interviews 

conducted in 2008 to 2012 pooled 

together. The 5-year estimates are 

ideal for conducting meaningful 

and statistically reliable analyses of 

special population groups, such as 

the older population with a disability, not only for the entire nation, 

but also for states and counties. 

The report examines the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, as well as the geographic 

distribution of the older population 

with a disability, with a focus on 

those in poverty or living alone.

STATUS, NUMBER, AND 

TYPE OF DISABILITY

Disability status

In 2008–2012, there were 40.7 

million people aged 65 and over 

in the United States, representing 

13.2 percent of the total population. Among this older population, 

about 15.7 million, or 38.7 percent, 
2 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 1. 

Population Aged 65 and Over by Number of Disabilities and Age: 2008−2012

(Percentage distribution. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.

None One Two Three or more

85 and over

75 to 84

65 to 74

65 and over

55.0

15.9 8.0 14.7

13.9 5.5 7.0

17.1

73.6

27.5 13.9 41.5

18.7 9.8 16.5

61.3

reported having one or more disabilities. The older population with 

a disability was disproportionately 

concentrated among the oldest 

old—those aged 85 and older represented 13.6 percent of the total 

older population, but accounted for

25.4 percent of the older population with a disability, with 65- to 

74-year-olds and 75- to 84-yearolds about evenly split for the 

remainder (37.0 percent and 37.6 

percent, respectively). Furthermore,

women composed 59.0 percent 

of the older population experiencing disabilities (higher than their 

56.8 percent share of the total 

older population). This translates 

into a sex ratio of 69 men per 100 

women for the older population 

with a disability.

Number of disabilities

Among the older population, 

61.3 percent reported having no 

disabilities among the six types 

defined on the ACS questionnaire, 

15.9 percent reported having only 

one type of disability, 8.0 percent 

reported two types of disabilities, 

and 14.7 percent reported three or 

more types of disabilities (Figure 

1). The patterns of the number of 

disabilities differed by age. When 

this percentage distribution was 

examined by three broad age 

groups, the share without a disability declined as age rose, while 

the shares with one, two, and three 

or more disabilities generally rose 

with age. The contrast is particularly salient when it comes to three 

or more types of disabilities. For 

the youngest age group (65 to 74), 

only 7.0 percent reported three or 

more types of disabilities, the proportion more than doubled to 16.5 

percent for those aged 75 to 84, 

and reached 41.5 percent for those 

aged 85 and older.

Type of disability

Of the six ACS disability items, 

ambulatory difficulty was the 

most frequently reported by the 

older population in 2008–2012.3

About 10 million people, or twothirds (66.5 percent) of the total 

older population with a disability, 

reported having serious difficulty 

walking or climbing stairs (Table 1). 

Difficulty with independent living, 

such as visiting a doctor’s office 

or shopping, was a distant second 

3 This analysis does not include 

combinations of types of disabilities.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 3 

Table 1.

Population Aged 65 and O

2008–2012

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confi

www.census.gov/acs/www)

ver With a Disability by Type o

 dentiality protection, sampling 

f Disability, Age, and Sex: 

error, nonsampling error, and defi nitions, see 

Type of disability1 Total Age Sex

65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over Male Female

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,028 19 .2 959 16 .5 1,075 18 .2 994 24 .9 1,137 17 .6 1,891 20 .4

Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,354 40 .4 2,030 34 .9 2,400 40 .6 1,924 48 .1 3,352 52 .0 3,001 32 .3

Cognitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,529 28 .8 1,311 22 .6 1,655 28 .0 1,562 39 .1 1,668 25 .9 2,861 30 .8

Ambulatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,467 66 .5 3,696 63 .6 3,861 65 .2 2,911 72 .8 3,681 57 .1 6,786 73 .1

Self-care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,468 28 .4 1,177 20 .2 1,595 26 .9 1,697 42 .4 1,502 23 .3 2,966 31 .9

Independent living . . . . . . . . 7,523 47 .8 1,978 34 .0 2,796 47 .2 2,749 68 .7 2,381 37 .0 5,142 55 .4

1

 Percentages for type of disability are the proportion of each type of disability among the total population aged 65 and over with a disability . A person may have 

one or more types of disability and, as such, the percentages add to more than 100 .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012 .

(47.8 percent), followed by serious 

difficulty hearing (40.4 percent). 

The order for these top three types 

of disability was consistent across 

age groups, except for those aged 

65 to 74, where the prevalence of 

hearing difficulty (34.9 percent) 

was higher than that of independent living (34.0 percent).

The prevalence rate for all disability types increased with age as 

expected, but interesting contrasts 

existed between men and women. 

Older women were more likely than 

older men to have five of the six 

types of disability included in the 

ACS, especially that of ambulatory 

difficulty (73.1 percent for women 

versus 57.1 percent for men). 

Older women’s higher prevalence 

rates for disability may partly be a 

function of their age composition 

compared with that of older men.

Older men, however, stood out 

with a higher proportion reporting 

serious difficulty hearing (52.0 percent, compared with 32.3 percent 

for women). Men’s higher likelihood 

for having a hearing disability may 

reflect the life-long occupational 

differentials between men and 

women, that men may be more 

likely to have worked in industries 

such as mining, manufacturing, 

or construction—industries documented to cause noise-induced 

hearing loss (Agrawal, Platz, 

and Niparko, 2008; Zhan et al., 

2010). Some of these studies also 

pointed to smoking as having a 

possible correlation with hearing 

impairment at older ages (also see 

Cruickshanks et al., 1998).

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

Health statistics show wide disparities in the health of the older 

population across states. According 

to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), where one 

lives in the United States affects 

how long and how healthfully one 

lives (CDC, 2013). Residents in the 

South, regardless of race or sex, 

had lower healthy life expectancy 

(HLE) at age 65 than residents in 

other regions.4

4 Healthy life expectancy (HLE) is a 

population health measure which estimates 

expected years of life in good health or free 

from disability. The CDC calculated statespecific HLE at age 65 using mortality data 

from the National Vital Statistics System, 

population estimates from the Census Bureau, 

and self-reported health status from the 

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. 

For more information, see <www.cdc.gov 

/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6228.pdf>. 

The South region was home to 6.1 

million older people with a disability (Table 2), equivalent to 38.7 

percent of the total older population 

with a disability living in the United 

States.5 The other three regions 

each contained approximately 

one-fifth of the total—the Midwest, 

3.5 million; the West, 3.3 million; 

and the Northeast, 2.9 million. The 

regional distribution of the older 

population with a disability is similar to that for the total older population reported in the 2010 Census, 

where 37 percent resided in the 

South, and the remaining 63 percent 

were split fairly equally among the 

Northeast, the Midwest, and the 

West regions (West et al., 2014).

5 The four regions of the United States as 

defined by the Census Bureau—Northeast: 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; 

Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and 

Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, 

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West 

Virginia; and West: Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, 

and Wyoming. In this report, the District of 

Columbia is treated as a state equivalent.
4 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2. 

State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 

2008–2012—Con.

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/acs/www)

Region and state

With a disability

Percentage of population with a disability

Number of disabilities Living arrangement1

Household

Group 

quarters

Total 

65 and over Number

Percentage 

of total

One 

disability

Two or more 

disabilities 

Living 

alone

Living with 

others

 United States . . . . 40,671 15,729 38 .7 41 .1 58 .9 29 .9 60 .9 9 .2

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,869 2,906 36 .9 40 .5 59 .5 32 .0 56 .3 11 .7

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,090 3,474 38 .2 42 .4 57 .6 32 .3 56 .2 11 .5

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,057 6,080 40 .4 40 .4 59 .6 28 .8 63 .5 7 .8

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,655 3,269 37 .8 41 .8 58 .2 27 .5 65 .3 7 .1

State

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 300 45 .2 37 .8 62 .2 30 .4 62 .7 6 .9

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 24 42 .5 44 .0 56 .0 27 .1 65 .5 7 .4

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895 310 34 .6 46 .2 53 .8 26 .8 68 .4 4 .8

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422 191 45 .1 40 .2 59 .8 29 .7 61 .7 8 .6

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,301 1,649 38 .4 38 .9 61 .1 26 .3 66 .3 7 .5

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 198 35 .4 45 .3 54 .7 30 .8 60 .5 8 .7

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . 510 181 35 .6 41 .2 58 .8 31 .4 55 .5 13 .1

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 47 35 .8 44 .4 55 .6 27 .6 63 .8 8 .6

District of Columbia . . . . . 69 26 37 .1 40 .4 59 .6 40 .3 50 .7 9 .0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,298 1,167 35 .4 43 .6 56 .4 27 .3 66 .5 6 .2

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,047 429 41 .0 39 .0 61 .0 27 .9 64 .4 7 .7

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 72 36 .4 40 .1 59 .9 18 .6 72 .8 8 .6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 77 39 .2 45 .0 55 .0 28 .4 65 .5 6 .1

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,622 614 37 .8 41 .0 59 .0 32 .5 56 .8 10 .8

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 338 39 .9 42 .4 57 .6 31 .2 57 .8 11 .1

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 167 36 .6 44 .4 55 .6 32 .5 52 .1 15 .4

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 152 40 .1 42 .2 57 .8 33 .0 54 .0 13 .0

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 262 44 .9 38 .8 61 .2 31 .7 58 .9 9 .4

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 254 45 .2 38 .7 61 .3 29 .0 62 .4 8 .6

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 85 40 .0 45 .7 54 .3 33 .1 57 .6 9 .3

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716 252 35 .2 41 .1 58 .9 29 .3 60 .5 10 .2

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 911 333 36 .6 40 .7 59 .3 33 .8 53 .9 12 .3

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,372 529 38 .6 42 .6 57 .4 31 .9 59 .6 8 .5

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . 689 241 34 .9 44 .6 55 .4 34 .4 51 .8 13 .7

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 184 48 .0 35 .9 64 .1 30 .0 62 .0 8 .0

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 347 41 .1 41 .6 58 .4 30 .9 57 .7 11 .4

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 58 39 .0 47 .4 52 .6 33 .5 57 .4 9 .2

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 94 37 .9 45 .5 54 .5 33 .6 52 .9 13 .6

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 116 35 .2 46 .3 53 .7 24 .9 70 .8 4 .3

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . 181 64 35 .6 46 .1 53 .9 28 .6 59 .1 12 .3

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . 1,196 421 35 .2 40 .0 60 .0 30 .4 59 .9 9 .6

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . 275 116 42 .1 41 .4 58 .6 28 .4 66 .2 5 .4

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,641 976 37 .0 38 .9 61 .1 32 .2 55 .6 12 .2

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 1,248 502 40 .3 40 .5 59 .5 30 .6 60 .8 8 .7

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . 98 38 39 .0 44 .4 55 .6 32 .8 50 .3 16 .9

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635 634 38 .8 41 .5 58 .5 32 .2 56 .7 11 .2

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 227 44 .6 41 .3 58 .7 30 .6 60 .5 8 .9

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 210 38 .8 43 .7 56 .3 31 .3 61 .9 6 .8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . 1,972 753 38 .2 41 .2 58 .8 31 .7 56 .6 11 .7

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . 153 58 37 .9 42 .4 57 .6 34 .6 52 .1 13 .3

See footnote at end of table .
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 5 

Table 2. 

State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected Characteristics: 

2008–2012—Con.

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/acs/www)

Region and state

Total 

65 and over

With a disability

Percentage of population with a disability

Number of disabilities Living arrangement1

Number

Percentage

of total

One 

disability

Two or more 

disabilities 

Household

Group 

quarters

Living 

alone

Living with 

others

State—Con.

South Carolina . . . . . . . . 640 256 40.0 40.5 59.5 28.8 63.8 7.4

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . 117 46 38.8 43.6 56.4 32.1 52.5 15.5

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 861 370 43.0 38.8 61.2 30.0 61.9 8.1

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,635 1,113 42.2 39.2 60.8 26.5 65.7 7.8

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 90 35.8 46.0 54.0 27.8 67.3 5.0

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 34 36.8 42.5 57.5 33.0 54.9 12.0

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 989 362 36.6 41.8 58.2 29.4 62.8 7.8

Washington . . . . . . . . . . 837 323 38.6 43.8 56.2 31.0 60.3 8.6

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . 299 137 45.9 39.1 60.9 32.2 60.9 6.9

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 784 275 35.1 43.7 56.3 33.8 53.7 12.5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 27 38.4 47.0 53.0 31.0 60.1 9.0

1

 The percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012.

About half (50.5 percent) of older 

Americans with a disability resided 

in nine states (Figure 2). Three 

states each had more than 1 million older people with a disability 

(Table 2)—California (1.6 million), 

Florida (1.2 million), and Texas (1.1 

million). Another six states housed 

500,000 or more each—New York 

(976,000), Pennsylvania (753,000), 

Ohio (634,000), Illinois (614,000), 

Michigan (529,000), and North 

Carolina (502,000). These top 

states were also among the largest 

states in size of the total population and the older population.6

Not surprisingly, states with the 

fewest people aged 65 and over 

with a disability were also the 

states with a small overall and 

older population size (Table 2). 

Alaska had the fewest older people 

with a disability (24,000), followed by the District of Columbia 

(26,000), Wyoming (27,000), 

6 See West et al., 2014 for more 

information on state population size and 

ranking for population of all ages and 65 and 

older from the 2010 Census.

Figure 2. 

Share of Top Nine States Among Total Population 

Aged 65 and Over With a Disability: 2008−2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling 

error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.

 Rest of nation,

49.5%

 California,10.5%

Florida, 7.4%

Texas, 7.1%

New York, 6.2%

Pennsylvania, 4.8%

Ohio, 4.0%

Illinois, 3.9%

Michigan, 3.4%

North Carolina, 3.2%
6 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau 0 100 Miles 0 200 Miles 0 100 Miles Note: Counties with coefficient of variation less than 30 percent and 50 or more unweighted respondents aged 65 and over meet statistical standards for reliability. AK HI Figure 3. Percentage With a Disability Among County Population Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www) 46.00 or more 37.00 to 45.99 Less than 37.00 Percentage does not meet statistical standards for reliability Percent U.S. percent: 38.67 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 7 

Vermont (34,000), North Dakota 

(38,000), South Dakota (46,000), 

and Delaware (47,000).7

However, a different pattern 

emerges when proportion, not 

population size, is examined. 

California’s 1.6 million older people 

with a disability represented 38.4 

percent of the state’s population aged 65 and older, close to 

the national average (38.7 percent). In comparison, at 184,000, 

Mississippi’s older population with 

a disability was equivalent to 48.0 

percent of the state’s total older 

population, the highest disability 

prevalence rate in the nation (Table 

2). Arizona (34.6 percent) had one 

of the lowest disability rates. 

Figure 3 displays the percentage 

with a disability among the population aged 65 and over for each 

county. Most of the nine top states 

in the size of older population with 

a disability, including Michigan, 

New York, and Pennsylvania, contained few counties with a high 

proportion of people with a disability. On the other hand, clusters 

of counties with high concentrations can be seen in central and 

north central Appalachia, the 

Mississippi Delta, some counties 

in the coastal plain from southern 

Virginia to the Florida Panhandle, 

eastern Oklahoma, along the TexasMexico border, and in a number 

of American Indian reservations in 

Arizona and New Mexico. These 

patterns are consistent with CDC’s 

estimates of state-level HLE at 

age 65. HLE was estimated to be 

the lowest in Mississippi (10.8 

years), followed by West Virginia 

(11.0 years), Kentucky (11.0 

years), Alabama (11.1 years), and 

Tennessee (11.9 years; CDC, 2013).

7 The estimates for South Dakota and 

Delaware are not statistically different from 

each other.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

CHARACTERISTICS

Educational attainment

Higher educational attainment has 

been linked to better health, as 

people with higher education are 

shown to be more likely to have 

a better understanding or willingness to use assistive technology or 

have home modification to mitigate 

functional difficulties in their daily 

lives (Melzer et al., 2001; Agree, 

Freedman, and Sengupta, 2004). 

Examination of the percentage of 

the population aged 65 and over 

with a disability by educational 

attainment (Table 3) supports 

the positive role education plays 

in the health conditions of older 

people and their ability to deal with 

environmental factors affecting 

disability.

Table 3 shows disability prevalence 

for each of three broad categories of educational attainment by 

selected characteristics. More than 

half (54.4 percent) of the older 

population who had not graduated 

from high school had a disability, twice the rate of those with a 

bachelor’s degree or higher (26.0 

percent). This inverse relationship 

between educational attainment 

and likelihood of having a disability 

can be found across age, sex, race, 

and Hispanic origin.

While the general pattern holds 

true for all characteristics examined, there are variations within the 

subgroups. Regardless of educational attainment level, disability 

prevalence rates rose with age. 

For example, among those with a 

college degree, just 16 percent of 

the youngest group (aged 65 to 

74) reported having a disability; 

in contrast, the disability rate of 

the oldest old was four times this 

level. Similarly, for those with less 

than a high school education, 41.5 

percent of those aged 65 to 74 

had a disability, while the share 

increased to nearly 8 out of 10 for 

the oldest old.

Disability rates were higher for 

women than men at all education 

levels. Among the race groups, 

older Asians had the lowest disability prevalence across all three educational categories. Older Blacks 

who had not completed high school 

had the highest disability rate at 

57.9 percent.8

Marital status

Marital status can have an impact 

on people’s wellbeing; this is 

especially true at older ages when 

the likelihood of widowhood rises 

(Moon et al., 2011; DiGiacomo et 

al., 2013). In 2008–2012, disability 

rates were lower for the married 

older population as compared to 

those who were widowed or in 

other categories of marital status 

(Table 3).9 For example, among the 

population aged 65 to 74, about 

one in five who were married had a 

disability, while about one in three 

who were widowed or in other 

marital categories had a disability.

Disability prevalence rates rise with 

age for all categories of marital status. For example, for both married 

and widowed, the percentage with 

a disability increased continuously 

across the older age groups, with 

the rate for the age group 85 and 

8 Race groups in this report refer to 

single race groups, or race alone, not in 

combination. For more information on the 

concepts of race and Hispanic origin, see 

Humes, Jones, and Ramirez, 2011. 9 “Married” refers to respondents who 

were married (excluding separated) at the 

time the survey was administered. 
8 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3. 

Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Educational Attainment, 

Marital Status, and Selected Characteristics: 2008–2012

(For information on confi dentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and defi nitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Educational attainment Marital status

Age, sex, race, High school Bachelor’s 

and Hispanic origin Less than graduate/ degree 

Total high school some college or above Married Widowed Other1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 .7 54 .4 37 .3 26 .0 30 .3 53 .4 40 .8

Age

 65 to 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .4 41 .5 26 .1 16 .0 22 .3 33 .9 33 .4

 75 to 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 .0 57 .3 43 .2 34 .1 39 .6 51 .0 49 .4

 85 and over . . . . . . . . . . 72 .5 79 .3 71 .0 64 .7 64 .5 76 .0 72 .7

Sex

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 .7 51 .2 36 .9 25 .2 33 .0 52 .3 40 .3

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 .2 56 .6 37 .6 27 .1 26 .7 53 .6 41 .1

Race

 White alone . . . . . . . . . . 37 .9 54 .5 37 .1 26 .0 30 .0 53 .0 39 .6

 Black alone . . . . . . . . . . 45 .7 57 .9 40 .8 29 .2 34 .4 56 .6 46 .4

 Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . 33 .2 46 .2 32 .2 21 .6 25 .8 49 .7 33 .5

 Other2

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 .9 51 .9 42 .0 32 .8 38 .2 57 .4 47 .4

Hispanic origin

 Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 .4 49 .1 35 .4 28 .3 35 .0 55 .0 43 .5

 Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . 38 .4 55 .5 37 .4 26 .0 30 .0 53 .2 40 .5

1

 “Other” in marital status includes the categories of divorced, separated, and never married .

2

 “Other” in race includes the categories of American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacifi c Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races .

Note: Percentages derived by the number of people aged 65 and over with a disability divided by the total population aged 65 and over in each category .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012 .

over more than twice the rate for 

ages 65 to 74.

Thus, the combination of being 

widowed and being among the 85 

and older age group dramatically 

increases the likelihood of having a 

disability (76.0 percent), as compared with those who are married 

and aged 65 to 74 (22.3 percent). 

The 2008–2012 ACS recorded 2.6 

million oldest-old widows or widowers with a disability.

Disability prevalence differences 

between older men and older 

women by marital status showed 

interesting contrasts. While married older men were more likely 

than married older women to have 

a disability (33.0 percent and 26.7 

percent, respectively), older widowers had a lower likelihood than 

older widows (52.3 percent and 

53.6 percent, respectively).

Differences in percentages with 

a disability can also be found 

among the race and Hispanic origin 

groups. Older Asians had the lowest disability rates among both the 

married and widowed. 

Living arrangement

The living arrangements of the 

older population are closely related 

to their age and marital status. 

Widowhood increases the likelihood 

of living alone or living in a nursing 

home (Russell, 2009; Noël-Miller, 

2010). While living alone might be 

preferable to some older people, 

living alone may present difficulties 

for people unable to perform everyday activities independently.

During 2008–2012, 29.9 percent of 

the older population with a disability lived alone, 9.2 percent lived in 

group quarters, such as a nursing 

home, and the rest lived with others in households (Table 2 and 

Figure 4).10 As age increases, the 

proportion of the population living 

alone or living in group quarters 

also increases. Among the older 

population with a disability, 24.4 

percent of the youngest age group 

(65 to 74) lived alone in a household, and this proportion increased 

to 30.0 percent for those aged 75 

to 84, and 37.7 percent for the 

oldest old. Older women with a disability were nearly twice as likely 

to live alone as older men with a 

disability (36.6 percent compared 

with 20.2 percent).

Living arrangements varied by 

race and Hispanic origin—almost 

10 Nursing homes, a part of the category 

referred to as “institutional group quarters” 

by the Census Bureau, provide skilled care 

including 24-hour access to aides and 

skilled nurses.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 9 

one-third of older Whites and 

Blacks with a disability lived 

alone, whereas just one in seven 

older Asians lived alone (Figure 

4). Older Hispanics with a disability also had a low proportion 

living alone, about one in five, 

compared with almost one in three 

living alone among non-Hispanics. 

Research has shown that Asians 

and Hispanics are more likely than 

Whites, Blacks, or non-Hispanics 

to live with families and less 

likely to live alone. In part, this is 

because a larger share of Asians 

and Hispanics are immigrants and 

immigrants are more likely to live 

with extended families out of economic need or for cultural reasons 

(Kritz, Gurak, and Chen, 2000; 

Zhou, 2006; Van Hook and Glick, 

2007). 

Among the older population with 

a disability, Rhode Island and 

Minnesota had among the highest 

proportions living alone in a household among the 50 states, with 

a similar proportion of about 34 

percent (Table 2). Older people with 

a disability living in the District of 

Columbia had a higher proportion 

living alone in a household than any 

state (40.3 percent). On the other 

end of the spectrum, Hawaii had 

the lowest proportion living alone 

among all states (18.6 percent), followed by Nevada (24.9 percent).

Figure 5 shows the percentage of 

people with a disability and living 

alone among the county population 

aged 65 and over. Counties with a 

low percentage were observed in 

parts of Arizona, California, Hawaii, 

Nevada, and Utah in the West, 

as well as Florida, Maryland, and 

Virginia in the South.

Poverty status

People living in poverty are disadvantaged and challenged socioeconomically and may have fewer 

options than those with financial 

resources to obtain human or 

technology assistance for the 

needs of everyday functioning. In 

Figure 4. 

Living Arrangements of Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by 

Selected Characteristics: 2008−2012

(Percentage distribution. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.

Not Hispanic

Hispanic

Asian alone

Black alone

White alone

Female

Male

85 and over

75 to 84

65 to 74

Total

10.8

6.8

9.3

10.3

5.2

29.9 60.9 9.2

62.0

37.7 45.0

30.0

24.4

8.0

17.4

17.1

70.8 4.8

27.5

9.5

5.4

73.0

52.6

60.2

54.4

80.0

20.2

36.6

30.5

31.4

14.8

21.1

30.6

73.5

59.9

61.3

Household living alone Household living with others Group quarters
10 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau 0 100 Miles 0 200 Miles 0 100 Miles Note: Counties with coefficient of variation less than 30 percent and 50 or more unweighted respondents aged 65 and over meet statistical standards for reliability. AK HI Figure 5. Percentage With a Disability and Living Alone Among County Population Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www) 15.00 or more 10.00 to 14.99 Less than 10.00 Percentage does not meet statistical standards for reliability Percent U.S. percent: 11.56 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 11 

2008–2012, 12.6 percent of the 

older household population with 

a disability were living in poverty 

(Figure 6); in comparison, 7.2 percent of the older household population without a disability were in 

poverty.11

11 The poverty status of people living in 

group quarters such as nursing homes is not 

available. For information on how the Census 

Bureau measures poverty, poverty thresholds, 

people whose poverty status cannot be 

determined, and how poverty is calculated in 

the ACS, see <www.census.gov/hhes/www 

/poverty/methods/definitions.html>. 

Among older adults with a disability, poverty rates were relatively 

stable across age groups. The 

older age groups with a disability 

had lower proportions in poverty 

than the youngest age group (12.2 

percent for ages 75 to 84, 12.0 

percent for ages 85 and older, compared with 13.4 percent for ages 

65 to 74). Older women with a disability were more likely than their 

male counterparts to be in poverty 

(15.2 percent for women and 9.2 

percent for men). 

Figure 6. 

Percentage in Poverty Among Household Population Aged 65 and Over 

With a Disability, by Selected Characteristics: 2008−2012

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.

Not Hispanic

Hispanic 

Asian alone

Black alone

White alone

Female

Male

85 and over

75 to 84

65 to 74

Total

12.0

9.2

15.2

23.7

16.8

22.9

11.8

12.6

13.4

12.2

10.8

While older Asians and Hispanics 

are much less likely than Whites to 

live alone, poverty status by race 

and Hispanic origin shows that 

older Asians and Hispanics are more 

economically disadvantaged than 

Whites. Among the older population with a disability, Blacks had the 

highest poverty rate (23.7 percent), 

followed by Asians (16.8 percent), 

and then Whites (10.8 percent). At 

22.9 percent, older Hispanics with 

a disability were almost twice as 

likely as their non-Hispanic counterparts to live in poverty.
12 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau 0 100 Miles 0 200 Miles 0 100 Miles Note: Counties with coefficient of variation less than 30 percent and 50 or more unweighted respondents aged 65 and over meet statistical standards for reliability. AK HI Figure 7. Percentage With a Disability and Living Below 150 Percent of Poverty Threshold Among County Household Population Aged 65 and Over: 2008−2012 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www) 15.00 or more 10.00 to 14.99 Less than 10.00 Percentage does not meet statistical standards for reliability Percent U.S. percent: 10.47 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008−2012.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 13 

Figure 7 provides the distribution 

by county for the percentage of 

the older population with a disability living below 150 percent 

of poverty among the household 

population aged 65 and over. It 

can be observed that some counties with high proportions of older 

people with a disability and living 

in or near poverty were concentrated in the coastal plain areas 

from southern Virginia to the 

Florida Panhandle, in central and 

north central Appalachia, along the 

Texas-Mexico border, in a number 

of American Indian reservations 

in Arizona and New Mexico, and 

in states along the Middle and 

Lower Mississippi River. Some of 

these concentrations may reflect 

local economic conditions. For 

example, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC) has consistently classified some counties 

in Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, 

Tennessee, and West Virginia as 

economically distressed from 2002 

to 2013 (ARC, 2014).12

CONCLUSION

This report provides data on older 

Americans with disabilities. In 

2008–2012, most older people with 

a disability had more than one type 

of disability, and they were likely to 

12 For more information on economically 

distressed counties in the Appalachian 

Region, see <www.arc.gov/research 

/RegionalDataandResearch.asp>. 

be women, aged 85 and over, with 

less than high school education, 

widowed, living alone, or living in 

or near poverty. There were also 

differences by race and Hispanic 

origin; older Blacks and Hispanics 

with a disability had higher rates 

of poverty, and older Blacks and 

Whites with a disability had higher 

rates of living alone. Populous 

states such as California, Florida, 

New York, and Texas had the largest number of older people with a 

disability. Southern counties, especially in central Appalachia or the 

Mississippi Delta, tended to have 

higher prevalence rates of disability. 

With the improvements in life 

expectancy, the focus of population aging in the United States has 

now moved to quality of life for 

the older population in their late 

life. Increases in both total life 

expectancy and disability-free life 

expectancy have been linked to 

delays in the onset of disability and 

increases in the rates of recovery 

from disability (Crimmins et al., 

2009). Disability can be reduced 

with improved medical treatment, 

positive behavioral changes, wider 

use of assistive technologies, rising 

education levels, and improvements in socioeconomic status 

(National Institutes of Health, 

2010).

With the first Baby Boomers having 

entered the 65-and-older ranks in 

2011, the United States may experience a rapid expansion in the number of older people with a disability 

in the next 2 decades. The future of 

disability among older Americans 

will be affected by how this country 

prepares for and manages a complex array of demographic, fiscal, 

medical, technological, and other 

developments that will unfold in 

the next several decades (National 

Research Council, 2007).

The ACS allows comprehensive 

analyses of the demographic and 

socioeconomic characteristics of 

the total U.S. older population with 

a disability, including both the 

noninstitutionalized population 

and those living in nursing homes. 

The ACS also facilitates analysis on 

geographic details that few other 

surveys permit; it enables examinations of the characteristics of 

this special population at state and 

county levels. With this ACS report 

on older population with a disability as a baseline, future studies can 

use ACS data for trend analysis on 

subnational levels.

The data provided in this report 

can help anticipate future disability 

prevalence in the older population. 

In addition, the data can help those 

with a disability, their families, and 

society at large prepare for daily 

life tasks and old-age care.
14 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN 

COMMUNITY SURVEY?

The American Community Survey 

(ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for congressional 

districts, counties, places, and 

other localities every year. It has 

an annual sample size of about 3.5 

million addresses across the United 

States and includes both housing 

units and group quar ters (e.g., 

nursing homes and pris ons). The 

ACS is conducted in every county 

throughout the nation. Single-year, 

3-year, and 5-year estimates from 

the ACS are all “period” estimates 

that represent data collected within 

particular intervals of time—12 

months, 36 months, and 60 

months, respectively. For information on the ACS sample design and 

other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs/www>.

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample 

interviewed from January 2008 

through December 2012. The 

estimates based on this sample 

describe the average values of 

person, household, and housing 

unit characteristics over this period 

of collection. Sampling error is the 

uncertainty between an estimate 

based on a sample and the corresponding value that would be 

obtained if the estimate were based 

on the entire population (as from 

a census). Measures of sampling 

error are provided in the form of 

margins of error for key estimates 

included in this report. All comparative statements in this report 

have undergone statistical testing 

and comparisons are significant at 

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

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

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

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the ACS Multiyear Accuracy of the Data document located 

at <www.census.gov/acs/www 

/Downloads/data_documentation 

/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracy 

ofData2012.pdf>.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 15 

REFERENCES

Agrawal, Yuri, Elizabeth A. Platz, and John K. Niparko, 

“Prevalence of Hearing Loss and Differences by 

Demographic Characteristics Among U.S. Adults: 

Data From the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey, 1999–2004,” Archives of 

Internal Medicine, 2008, Vol. 168, No. 14:1522–30.

Agree, Emily M., Vicki A. Freedman, and Manisha 

Sengupta, “Factors Influencing the Use of Mobility 

Technology in Community-Based Long-Term Care,” 

Journal of Aging and Health, 2004, Vol. 16, No. 2: 

267–307.

Altman, Barbara M. and Amy B. Bernstein, Disability and 

Health in the United States, 2001–2005, National 

Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 2008.

Appalachian Regional Commission, The Appalachian 

Region, available at <www.arc.gov/appalachian

_region/CountyEconomicStatusandDistressedAreas

inAppalachia.asp>, accessed on January 22, 2014.

Brault, Matthew W., Americans With Disabilities: 2010,

Current Population Reports, P70-131, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 2012.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “StateSpecific Healthy Life Expectancy at Age 65 Years—

United States, 2007–2009,” Morbidity and Mortality 

Weekly Report, 2013, Vol. 62, No. 28: 561–566.

Crimmins, Eileen M., Mark D. Hayward, Aaron 

Hagedorn, Yasuhiko Saito, and Nicolas Brouard, 

“Change in Disability-Free Life Expectancy for 

Americans 70 Years Old and Older,” Demography, 

2009, Vol. 46, No. 3: 627–646.

Cruickshanks, Karen J., Ronald Klein, Barbara E. Klein, 

Terry L. Wiley, David M. Nondahl, and Ted S. 

Tweed, “Cigarette Smoking and Hearing Loss: The 

Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study,” Journal of the 

American Medical Association, 1998, Vol. 279, No. 

21:1715–1719.

DiGiacomo, Michelle, Joanne Lewis, Marie T. Nolan, 

Jane Phillips, and Patricia M. Davidson, “Health 

Transitions in Recently Widowed Older Women: 

A Mixed Methods Study,” BMC Health Services 

Research, 2013, 13:143.

He, Wan and Mark N. Muenchrath, 90+ in the United 

States: 2006–2008, American Community Survey 

Reports, ACS-17, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011.

Humes, Karen, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez, 

Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, 2010 

Census Briefs, c2010br-02, U.S. Census Bureau, 

2011, available at <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf>.

Kritz, Mary M., Douglas T. Gurak, and Likwang Chen, 

“Elderly Immigrants: Their Composition and Living 

Arrangements,” Journal of Sociology and Social 

Welfare, 2000, Vol. XXVII, No. 1: 85–114.

Leonardi, Matilde, Jerome Bickenbach, Tevfik Bedirhan 

Ustun, Nenad Kostanjsek, and Somnath Chatterji, 

“The Definition of Disability: What Is in a Name?” 

The Lancet, 2006, Vol. 368, Issue 9543: 1219–1221.

Melzer, David, Grant Izmirlian, Suzanne G. Leveille, and 

Jack M. Guralnik, “Educational Differences in the 

Prevalence of Mobility Disability in Old Age: The 

Dynamics of Incidence, Mortality, and Recovery,”

Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES, 2001, 

Vol. 56B, No. 5: S294–S301.

Moon, J. Robin, Naoki Kondo, M. Maria Glymour, and 

S. V. Subramanian, “Widowhood and Mortality: A 

Meta-Analysis,” PLoS ONE, 2011, 6(8): e23465. 

Available at <www.plosone.org>, accessed on 

March 7, 2014.

National Institutes of Health, Fact Sheet—Disability in 

Older Adults, 2010, available at <report.nih.gov

/NIHfactsheets/Pdfs/DisabilityinOlderAdults

%28NIA%29.pdf>, accessed on February 4, 2014.

National Research Council, The Future of Disability in 

America, Washington, DC, The National Academies 

Press, 2007.

Noël-Miller, Claire, “Spousal Loss, Children, and the 

Risk of Nursing Home Admission,” Journals of 

Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and 

Social Sciences, 2010, Vol. 65B, No. 3: 370–380.

Russell, David, “Living Arrangements, Social Integration, 

and Loneliness in Later Life: The Case of Physical 

Disability,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 

2009, Vol. 50, No. 4, 460–475.

Van Hook, Jennifer, and Jennifer E. Glick, “Immigration 

and Living Arrangements: Moving Beyond Economic 

Need Versus Acculturation,” Demography, 2007, 

Vol. 44, No. 2: 225–249.

West, Loraine A., Samantha Cole, Daniel Goodkind, and 

Wan He, 65+ in the United States: 2010, Current 

Population Reports, P23-212, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

2014.
16 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

World Health Organization and the World Bank, World 

Report on Disability, 2011, Available at <www.who

.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report/en

/index.html>.

Zhan, Weihai, Karen J. Cruickshanks, Barbara E. K. 

Klein, Ronald Klein, Guan-Hua Huang, James S. 

Pankow, Ronald E. Gangnon, and Theodore S. 

Tweed, “Generational Differences in the Prevalence 

of Hearing Impairment in Older Adults,” American 

Journal of Epidemiology, 2010, 171:260–266.

Zhou, Min, “Negotiating Culture and Ethnicity: 

Intergenerational Relations in Chinese Immigrant 

Families in the United States,” in Ram Mahalingam, 

ed., Cultural Psychology of Immigrants, Lawrence 

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2006, 315–336.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 17 

Appendix Table 1.

Margin of Error for Populatio

Age, and Sex: 2008–2012

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confi

www.census.gov/acs/www)

n Aged 65 and Over With a

 dentiality protection, sampling 

 Disability by Type of Disability, 

error, nonsampling error, and defi nitions, see

Type of disability

Total Age Sex

65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over Male Female

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 .1 8 0 .1 8 0 .1 7 0 .1 9 0 .1 11 0 .1

Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 .1 9 0 .1 9 0 .1 9 0 .2 9 0 .1 11 0 .1

Cognitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 .1 7 0 .1 10 0 .2 10 0 .2 8 0 .1 16 0 .1

Ambulatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 0 .1 10 0 .1 12 0 .1 11 0 .1 11 0 .1 16 0 .1

Self-care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 .1 7 0 .1 9 0 .1 10 0 .2 7 0 .1 13 0 .1

Independent living . . . . . . . . 21 0 .1 10 0 .1 12 0 .1 11 0 .2 9 0 .1 16 0 .1

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

error is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate . When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 

90 percent confi dence interval .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012 .
18 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 2. 

Margin of Error for State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected 

Characteristics: 2008–2012—Con.

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/acs/www)

Region and state

Total 

65 and over

With a disability Percentage of population with a disability

Number of disabilities Living arrangement

Number

Percentage 

of total

One 

disability

Two or more 

disabilities 

Household 

Group 

quarters

Living 

alone

Living with 

others

 United States . . . 4 21 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Z

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Z

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

State

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.2

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3

California . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5

District of Columbia . . . . Z 1 1.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.3

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.2

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.2

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.2

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.4

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . Z 3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.2

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.5

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.3

New Hampshire . . . . . . . Z 1 0.6 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.4

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . Z 4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.3

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2

North Carolina . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.7

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.2

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . Z 4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.5

See notes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 19 

Appendix Table 2. 

Margin of Error for State Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by Selected 

Characteristics: 2008–2012—Con.

(Numbers in thousands. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/acs/www)

Region and state

Total 

65 and over

With a disability Percentage of population with a disability

Number of disabilities Living arrangement

Number

Percentage 

of total

One 

disability

Two or more 

disabilities 

Household 

Group 

quarters

Living 

alone

Living with 

others

State—Con.

South Carolina . . . . . . . . Z 3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.3

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.7 0.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2

Washington . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.2

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . Z 2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . Z 1 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 0.6

Z Rounds to zero.

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

error is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 

90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012.
20 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 3.

Margin of Error for Percentage of Population Aged 65 and Over With a Disability by 

Educational Attainment, Marital Status, and Selected Characteristics: 2008–2012

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

Age, sex, race, 

and Hispanic origin

Total

Educational attainment Marital status

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate/ 

some college

Bachelor’s 

degree 

or above Married Widowed Other1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

Age

65 to 74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

75 to 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

85 and over . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4

Sex

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

Race

White alone . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

Black alone . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4

Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8

Other2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6

Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4

Not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2

1

 “Other” in marital status includes the categories of divorced, separated, and never married. 2

 “Other” in race includes the categories of American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races.

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

error is in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 

90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year estimates, 2008–2012.



24 Older Americans With a Disability: 2008–2012 U.S. Census BureauACS-29 December 2014 American Community Survey Reports Older Americans With a Disability: 2008−2012