Abstract

The 2018 Tonga National Disabiltiy Survey was conducted jointly by the Tonga Department of Statistics (TDS) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Social Protection and Disability. It is the first population-based comprehensive disability survey in the country. Funding was provided through number of bodies including UNICEF, DFAT and Tonga Government. The Pacific Community provided technical supports through out different stages of the survey.

The main purpose of the survey is to desctibe demographic, social and economic characteristics of persons with disabilities and detemine the prevalence by type of disability in Tonga, and thus help the government and decision makers in formulating more suitable national plans and policies relevant to persons with disabilities.

The other objectives of the Disability survey were collect data that would determine but not limited to the following: a. Disability prevalence rate at the national, urban and rural based on the Washington Group recommendations; b. degree of activity limitations and participation restrictions and societal activities for persons with disability: c. ascertain the specific vulnerabilities that children and adults with disability face in Tonga d. establish the accessibility of health and social services for persons with disability in Tonga e. generate data that guides the development of policies and strategies that ensure equity and opportunities for children and adults with disabilities.

An additional module was included to collect information on people's perception/experiences of service delivery of Goverment to the public.

Geographic coverage

National and island division coverage.

There are six statistical regions known as Divisions in Tonga namely Tongatapu urban area, Tongatapu rural area, Vava'u, Ha'apai, Eua and the Niuas.Tongatapu Urban refers to the capital Nuku'alofa is the urban area while the other five divisions are rural areas. Each Division is subdivided into political districts, each district into villages and each village into census enumeration areas known as Census Blocks.

Analysis unit

• Individuals
• Households.

Universe

The survey covers all usual residents of selected households, all children 2-17 years and adults 18 years and above and undertake comparisons between persons with and without disability.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE: the total number of households to interview approximates 5,500 households based on the budget allocation available

SELECTION PROCESS: the selection of the sample is based on different steps (see previous section)

Stratification: this sample design is a stratified multi stage random survey. Stratification happened based on the disability status of the households and their geographical residence.

STAGES OF SELECTION: - the first stage of selection focussed on the selection of Enumeration Areas or Census Blocks as Primary Sampling Unit for households with disability. In total 334 PSUs have to be selected in order to cover the expected sample size. - the stage 2 of the selection concerns only the households with no disability as all households with disability from the selected EA are selected for interview

Level of representation: The survey will provide a comparison of the status between households with and without disability at the island group level.

REPLACEMENT: All non-response have been replaced according to the disability status of the household. Disable households that had to be replaced were replaced by another household with disability from the closest block.

SAMPLING FRAME: The sampling frame used was the 2016 population census. No additional listing were conducted.

The Sampling strategy is designed consistently with the purpose of the survey. The purpose of the 2018 Tonga Disability Survey is not to estimate the prevalence of disability in Tonga, which has been done on a very accurate way in the 2016 Population Census, but to compare the situation of the household with disability with the situation of households with not disability across the 6 geographical zones of Tonga.

The sampling strategy of the 2018 Tonga Disability Survey is based on 2 stages stratified random sample.

The stratification carried out in this survey is based on the disability status of the household: - strata 1: households who declared at least 1 member in disability (according to Washington Group list of question) - strata 2: households who did not report any disability member

The sampling frame used in this survey is the 2016 National Population Census that included the set of question on disability (from the Washington Group). In addition to the first set of stratification, the geographical breakdown of Tonga (by 6 island groups) has to be taken into consideration.

The overall idea is to equally split the total sample in both strata (1 & 2), which has been allocated to approximatively 5,500 households.

A replacement procedure is implemented in case of non -response.

The first step is to identify the households with disability from the population census. Households with disability are the households who reported at least 1 member as disable according to the 6functionning domains recommended by the Washington Group (see, hear, walk, remember, self-care, communicate).

In the strata 1, the sample distribution of approximatively 2,750 households was allocated using the square roots distribution of households across the 6 island groups. The next step consists in determining the number of blocks (Enumeration Areas) to select as Primary Sampling Unit. Again, by getting from the census frame the average number of households with disability in each block by island group will generate the number of blocks to select as PSU. Within each selected block, all households with disability will be selected for interview.

The strategy for strata 2 (non disable households) is to use the same blocks that have been selected for households in strata 1 and interview within those blocks the same number of households as strata 1.

Here is the final sample - after selection: Tongatapu urban: 1336
Tongatapu rural: 1884
Vava'u: 1060
Ha'apai: 550
Eua: 352
Niua: 54
TOTAL: 334

EA SELECTION (Primary Sampling Units labelled as blocks in the 2016 Tonga census): The EA were selected using probability proportional to size (size means number of households with disability within the EA). Within all selected EAs, all households with disability are selected for interview, and the same number of household with no disability. Households with no disability to interview in the EA were randomly selected, using uniform probability of selection.

Sampling deviation

Deviation from the original sampling plan was observed due to challenges in the field: The main fieldwork challenge was to trace the selected households (that were selected from the 2016 census frame) especially after cyclone Gita that hit Tonga before the field operation. Geography and composition of households have changed (and the household listing was not updated).

Under those circumstances, the total number of households interviewed has changed. Here is the percentage of modification between the original sampling plan and the survey achievements for each of the 2 stratas:

-STRATA 1: Tongatapu urban: 5% Tongatapu rural: 3% Vava'u: 6% Ha'apai: 0% Eua: -10% Niua: 103% Total: 4%

-STRATA 2 Tongatapu urban: 6% Tongatapu rural: 5% Vava'u: 2% Ha'apai: 1% Eua: 1% Niua: 133% Total: 5%.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Tonga Disability Survey 2018 used the CAPI system for the interview. However, the questionnaire was developed manually using excel and word software. The questionnaire was then converted to the CAPI using the Survey Solutions software. The questionnaire has two parts - the household and personal questions.

The Household questionnaire containing questions asking about characteristics of all household members of and about the household characteristics. It contains the following parts: · Household schedule/roster - listing all members and recording other social and economic information · Household characteristics - ask about household structure, characteristics, goods, assets and income.

The Personal questionnaire contains questions asking about child functioning among young children (aged 2-4 years) and older children (aged 5-17 years). Questions on adult functioning are also asked of adult aged 18 years and above. The personal questionnaire includes the following sections: · Young Child functioning for children aged 2-4 years old · Older child functioning for children aged 5-17 years old · Adult functioning for persons aged 18 years and older · Tools and service (2 years and above) · Needs and availability (2 years and above) · Transport (2 years and above) · Health care and support (5 years and above) · Education (5 years and above) · Employment and income (15 years and above) · Participation and accessibility (15 years and above) · Other social issues (18 years and above).

The development of the questionnaire went through several consultations and review from key partners and stakeholders within and outside Tonga including Tonga National Statistics Office, Non disability and disability offices in Tonga, UNICEF, WG, PDF, UNESCAP and SPC. Though the questionnaire was originally developped in English, it was also translated to Tongan local language. The first draft of the questionnaire was tested during the Pilot training and fieldwork. The questionnaire is provided as an external resource.

The draft questionnaire was pre-tested during

Percentage of adults reporting a limiting long term physical or mental health problem, by age, gender, household type, and type of housing tenure.The Scottish Survey Core Questions is an innovative project drawing together multiple household surveys to provide a large sample for subnational analysis.

The data in this dataset relates to the economic activity of persons by disabled status. As the question on disability only covers people of working age in the survey, this dataset is restricted to analysis of the working age population. Data for the population aged 16 and over, which are also usually considered when measuring economic activity, are not available. NOTE From 2010-2020 the female state pension age is changing from 60 to 65. The ONS changed the routing of the disability questions so that from 2010 all persons aged 16-64 were asked those questions, prior to that they were only asked to those aged 16/59(f)/64(m) and to those in employment. Therefore data prior to 2010 is on a working age basis (16-59/64) and data after that is available on both a 16-64 and a working age basis. Comparisons should not be made between the working age data prior to 2010 and the 16-64 data after 2010. For a long run series the working age data should be used. In April 2013 the Office for National Statistics (ONS)’s Annual Population Survey (APS) adopted a new standardised question on individuals with health problems. This has led to a discontinuity in the series between responses for March 2013 and April 2013. This will lead to the datasets for July 2012 to June 2013, October 2012 to September 2013 and January 2013 to December 2013 containing responses on two different basis over the period of each dataset. Due to this discontinuity, WG has decided to follow ONS' approach to suspend this series until a full year’s data is available on the APS and will launch a new series based on the new questions from the April 2013 to March 2014 APS. These new series will still be discontinuous when compared with the old series but will be internally consistent.

Number of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Do you know how to get in touch with your case handler?", divided by the number of respondents to the question in total. The answer options were "Yes" and "No". The survey is not a total survey, which is why the result for a municipality can be based on a smaller number of users' answers, but at least five. The survey has been conducted with the help of questionnaires adapted for people with disabilities (e.g. optional pictograms or reading). Data are available according to gender breakdown.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. Accordingly, comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not recommended. For more information on these questions and their evaluation in the 2006 ACS Content Test, see the Evaluation Report Covering Disability..Industry titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2017 North American Industry Classification System. The Industry categories adhere to the guidelines issued in Clarification Memorandum No. 2, "NAICS Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. Statistical Agencies," issued by the Office of Management and Budget..Occupation titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification..In 2019, methodological changes were made to the class of worker question. These changes involved modifications to the question wording, the category wording, and the visual format of the categories on the questionnaire. The format for the class of worker categories are now listed under the headings "Private Sector Employee," "Government Employee," and "Self-Employed or Other." Additionally, the category of Active Duty was added as one of the response categories under the "Government Employee" section for the mail questionnaire. For more detailed information about the 2019 changes, see the 2016 American Community Survey Content Test Report for Class of Worker located at http://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/acs/2017_Martinez_01.html..The 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the March 2020 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineations due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the ma...

Number of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Did the administrator at the meeting with you tell you that you understood?", divided by the number of respondents to the question in total. The answer options were "Yes", "Partially" and "No". The survey is not a total survey, which is why the result for a municipality can be based on a smaller number of users' answers, but at least five. The survey has been conducted with the help of questionnaires adapted for people with disabilities (e.g. optional pictograms or reading). Data are available according to gender breakdown.

Example of survey questions.

The project on the quality of life of the mentally disabled was set in motion by the research unit of the Finnish Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in 1989. The data were collected by face-to-face interviews. The quality of life of the mildly disabled was studied from several viewpoints. The mildly disabled responded to survey questions themselves, but background information was collected before the interviews. Interviewers assessed the interview situations and the reliability of the responses afterwards. The respondents gave their opinions on housing, working life, and their financial circumstances. Their educational background was charted, as well as whether they needed help with housework. Several questions focused on leisure, social relationships, and individual psychological factors. Views on hobbies, friendships, relationships, and autonomy were explored. Finally, the respondents were asked how conscious they were of their disabilities, and how those disabilities affected their lives. Background variables included the respondent's year of birth, mother tongue, Special Services District, parents' education and occupation, and the number of siblings. Relating to R's disability, questions about mobility, oral expression, and living in institutions were asked.

Number of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Do you know who to talk to if you think the meeting with the case handler was bad?", divided by the number of respondents to the question in total. The answer options were "Yes" and "No". The survey is not a total survey, which is why the result for a municipality can be based on a smaller number of users' answers, but at least five. The survey has been conducted with the help of questionnaires adapted for people with disabilities (e.g. optional pictograms or reading). Data are available according to gender breakdown.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Technical Documentation section.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. Accordingly, comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not recommended. For more information on these questions and their evaluation in the 2006 ACS Content Test, see the Evaluation Report Covering Disability..Industry titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2017 North American Industry Classification System. The Industry categories adhere to the guidelines issued in Clarification Memorandum No. 2, "NAICS Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. Statistical Agencies," issued by the Office of Management and Budget..Occupation titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification..2019 ACS data products include updates to several categories of the existing means of transportation question. For more information, see: Change to Means of Transportation..In 2019, methodological changes were made to the class of worker question. These changes involved modifications to the question wording, the category wording, and the visual format of the categories on the questionnaire. The format for the class of worker categories are now listed under the headings "Private Sector Employee," "Government Employee," and "Self-Employed or Other." Additionally, the category of Active Duty was added as one of the response categories under the "Government Employee" section for the mail questionnaire. For more detailed information about the 2019 changes, see the 2016 American Community Survey Content Test Report for Class of Woker located at http://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/acs/2017_Martinez_01.html..The 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the September 2018 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineations due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:An "**" entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.An "-" entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution, or the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.An "-" following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.An "+" following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.An "***" entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.An "*****" entry in the margin of er...

The survey studied the opinions of Finnish social services professionals on disability services. The respondents were asked questions about the state and operability of disability services, as well as the skills that disability services required. The survey consisted of three major parts; structural social work in the disability services, the service process, and the support received at work. In the first part, the respondents were asked how structural social work was present in their workplace. Opinions on how to develop the effectiveness and visibility of social work in disability services were charted. Questions in the second part of the survey covered the service process. The respondents answered questions on the number of clients, whether the number was appropriate, which laws they applied to clients, and what kind of impact the new Social Welfare Act had on their work. The respondents were also asked how they gathered information about the clients, how often they performed certain tasks at work, and whether they wished to have some form of support during different parts of the service process. The last part of the survey consisted of questions on support received at work. The respondents were asked if they had access to support that enhances their management of work-related stress, for example, development discussions or professional guidance. Lastly, the respondents were asked about what functions and what does not function in the work of social service professionals, and what could be improved. The background variables included the respondent's job title, education, type of contract, type of employer organization, and region.

Abstract

The major objective of the 2008 Tanzania Disability Survey was to determine the prevalence of disability in the country. The survey also intended to determine living conditions among people with activity limitations. It is anticipated that results generated from 2008 Tanzania Disability will contribute to the improvement of the living conditions among people with activity limitations in Tanzania; initiate a discussion on the concepts and understanding of “disability” and monitor the impact of government policies, programmes and donor support on the well being of the population with activity limitations.

Geographic coverage

National coverage, Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar

Analysis unit

Individuals, Households, Children

Universe

Persons aged 15 years and above and Children aged 0-14 years from sampled households nationally

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The survey was national representative and information was collected from all selected households and individuals with and without disability (measured as activity limitations).

The primary sampling unit for the survey was the census enumeration area (EA) and the ultimate sampling unit was the individual household members. The survey utilized a three-stage systematic stratified random sampling design involving clusters (EAs), households and individual household members.

The desired confidence level for the survey was 95 percent (za/2 with 1.96), with an error margin (E) of 2 percent in estimating the parameters. The expected prevalence (P) of mild and severe cases of disability was estimated to vary between 10 and 20 percent (P=0.15) of the country's population. Details on sampling procedures are attached as Annex II.

Sampling deviation

A total of 276 selected and 4 substitutes EAs were interviewed out of the selected 281. Only one EA in Dar es Salaam near the State House was not interviewed due to the construction of office premises in place of residential houses that existed during the 2002 Census.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Development of survey questionnaires started in 2006 with technical assistance from Human Science and Research Institute of South Africa. Three types of questionnaires were used. These were the household questionnaire that was administered to all selected households, and individual questionnaires that were administered to children aged 0 -14 years and adults aged 15 years and above. (Annex I).

Two pre-tests were conducted before the survey. Questionnaires were pre-tested on 25 households in Kibaha District in October 2006. The main objective of the pre - test was to test the way in which respondents understood and interpreted the main questions on difficulties used to identify the population with activity limitations.

Observations from this pre-test were used to improve the questionnaires before conducting a relatively bigger pilot survey in Dodoma Municipality in July 2007. A total of 18 interviewers and 4 supervisors were involved. Training was done in 5 days and data collection lasted for 10 days. A total of 154 households were successfully interviewed.

The household questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in each selected household. Basic information was collected on the characteristics of each person listed, including his/her relationship with the head of the household, age, sex, marital status, education and economic status. For children less than 18 years of age, survival status of the parents was also recorded. The household questionnaire also included questions on activity limitations of the respondent. These screening questions were used to determine persons with disabilities. All those who reported at least one activity limitation were further interviewed individually. Household questionnaires also collected information on household characteristics including main source of drinking water, toilet facilities, source of energy, building materials and possession of certain assets. Information on food security, use of mosquito nets and deaths of children less than five years of age was also collected.

The adult questionnaire was used to collect information from all person aged 15 years and above who were identified in the household questionnaire as having some form of disability.
The questionnaire collected information on the following topics: · Activity limitations and participation restrictions; · Environmental factors; · Awareness, need and receipt of services; · Education and employment; · Assistive devices and technology; · Accessibility in the home and surroundings; · Inclusion in family and social life; and · Health and general well-being.

The children questionnaire collected information from all children identified as having disabilities and collected more or less the same information as in the adult questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

Data processing was done centrally at NBS headquarters in Dar es Salaam. Data processing started concurrently with the fieldwork. The data processing personnel included supervisors and a questionnaire administrator, who ensured that the expected numbers of questionnaires from all clusters were received. There were also five office editors and ten data entrants. The CsPro computer package was used for data processing. The data entry and editing phase of the survey was completed in December 2008

Response rate

The total responding households were 6,882 out of the anticipated 7,025 with a population of more than 35,000 compared to the expected 32,000. The overall response rate for households was 98 percent.

People with disabilities face greater risk of adverse health outcomes and death from COVID-19 infection. As vaccination efforts continue across the United States, it is critical that accurate and reliable information about the COVID-19 vaccines reach this population. The purpose of this study was to investigate how people with disabilities view these vaccines as well as what barriers they face in getting vaccinated. In February of 2021, we launched an online survey looking into the vaccination status, trust in information sources on COVID-19 and vaccines, and attitudes and barriers surrounding vaccination efforts. In particular, we sought to examine differences among urban and rural respondents. We recruited participants from MTurk and invited them to complete the survey we had created using Qualtrics. We included a set of screening questions to filter for age, disability status, and to screen out bots. The following questions asked about health status, health literacy, vaccination status and intent, views of and barriers surrounding access to vaccines, trust in information sources, and other pandemic related topics. We processed and analyzed the results using a statistical software and produced the results in a research brief and manuscript.

Groups of questions selected for mapping exercise.

This is a dissertation about the metaphysical and epistemic grounding behind the mere difference view of disability. The case for the mere difference view rests on two key moves: First, given ableism, the plausibility of the mere difference view rests on the delineation of disability “in itself” from disability as it is currently experienced in the actual world. Chapter 1 is directed at this metaphysical task. I argue that metaphysic’s age-old concept of essence can be commandeered to do this work in social philosophy, and moreover, that its companion, potentiality, can also do valuable work in grounding the effects of disability in different contexts. Second, even with this distinction in hand, why question the intuitive assumption that disability is bad? The answer is disability-positive testimony from disabled people. This is the epistemic basis of the mere difference view. Chapter 2 is concerned with analyzing whether the lived experience of the Disability Rights movement indeed translates to authority that rationally compels others to believe the mere difference view. I examine disability-positive testimony in dialogue with debates on epistemic authority and argue that although lived experience does render personal testimony authoritative, it cannot directly compel acceptance of the mere difference view. Instead, I argue for distinguishing between different kinds of disability-positive testimony, the degrees of authority they have, and the role each kind ought to play. Finally, Chapter 3 is concerned with whether the testimony-based dialectic can be extended to the cognitively disabled who may be unable to speak for themselves. Although it is common for caregivers to speak on their behalf, their testimony is often dismissed because of worries that they are blinded by love. Against such dismissals, I argue that good caregivers are uniquely positioned to offer reliable and often insightful testimony because of the semi-transformative power of love.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire. Accordingly, comparisons of disability data from 2008 or later with data from prior years are not recommended. For more information on these questions and their evaluation in the 2006 ACS Content Test, see the Evaluation Report Covering Disability..Industry titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2017 North American Industry Classification System. The Industry categories adhere to the guidelines issued in Clarification Memorandum No. 2, "NAICS Alternate Aggregation Structure for Use By U.S. Statistical Agencies," issued by the Office of Management and Budget..Occupation titles and their 4-digit codes are based on the 2018 Standard Occupational Classification..In 2019, methodological changes were made to the class of worker question. These changes involved modifications to the question wording, the category wording, and the visual format of the categories on the questionnaire. The format for the class of worker categories are now listed under the headings "Private Sector Employee," "Government Employee," and "Self-Employed or Other." Additionally, the category of Active Duty was added as one of the response categories under the "Government Employee" section for the mail questionnaire. For more detailed information about the 2019 changes, see the 2016 American Community Survey Content Test Report for Class of Worker located at http://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2017/acs/2017_Martinez_01.html..The 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the March 2020 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delineations of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. In certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB delineations due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest ...

In the past few years it has become alarmingly clear that women with disabilities are at an extremely high risk for emotional, sexual, and physical assault. The Developmental Disabilities Institute at Wayne State University, in collaboration with the United Cerebral Palsy Association in Michigan, conducted a one-year study to investigate the prevalence and correlates of, and service system capacity related to, domestic abuse among women with physical disabilities in Michigan. The study aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What is the prevalence of domestic violence among a sample of women with physical disabilities? (2) What potential factors for domestic violence exist among women with physical disabilities? and (3) What is the capacity of existing support programs (e.g., safe houses, shelters, and service agencies) to assist women with physical disabilities? The population for this study was women over the age of 18 who had physical disabilities. Consistent with the work of other researchers, physical disabilities in this study were defined as those disabilities that result in functional impairment, such as cerebral palsy, post-polio syndrome, spina bifida, amputation, rheumatic conditions, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, hearing impairment, and stroke. A sample of 177 women was recruited through several mechanisms. To address the question of domestic abuse prevalence, the women participating in the study were first asked to complete a brief questionnaire addressing demographic characteristics and their experience with domestic violence (Part 1, Screening Interview Data). Fifty-six percent (100) of the 177 women interviewed indicated a positive history of abuse at their initial screening. In order to address the second research question about the correlates of abuse, this subsample of 100 women was invited and encouraged to participate in the second phase of the research, which involved a more extensive interview (Part 2, Abuse Interview Data). The interview used was based on a protocol developed by Nosek (1995) that addressed demographic characteristics, social networks, and abuse history. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include type of disability, type of personal assistance needed, and whether the respondent was ever physically, emotionally, or sexually abused. Part 2 also contains variables on sources of monthly income, who perpetrated the abuse, the abuser's gender, how long the victim knew the abuser, whether the victim sought assistance from a domestic violence program or shelter, and a description of the worst incident of physical abuse. Demographic variables in Parts 1 and 2 include ethnicity, age, employment status, and marital status.

This dataset provides Census 2021 estimates that classify usual residents in England and Wales by long-term health problems or disabilities, sex, age and level of deprivation. The estimates are as at Census Day, 21 March 2021. Age-standardisation allows for comparisons between populations that may contain proportions of different ages.

Census questions relating to disability enable different levels of detail in relation to the presence of conditions and extent of activity limitation people experience. For simplicity, we have referred to these as ‘categories’ as shown in the table below. We consider the Census 2021, 2011 and 2001 questions to be broadly comparable. However, the 2021 Census disability question changed compared with 2011 to align more closely with the Equality Act (2010). The potential influence of question changes should be considered when drawing comparisons between years, particularly for older age groups.

Age specific percentage

Age-specific percentages are estimates of disability prevalence in each age group, and are used to allow comparisons between specified age groups.

Age-standardised percentage

Age-standardised percentages are estimates of disability prevalence in the population, across all age groups. They allow for comparison between populations over time and across geographies, as they account for differences in the population size and age structure.

Details can be found here

Category

The measures of disability in each Census (2021, 2011 and 2001) enable different categorisations of responses to the question. These provide different levels of detail from the responses provided. Further information on the categories available is given in the "Questions_asked" sheet.

Count

The count is the number of usual residents in each category (disabled, non-disabled, disabled; limited a lot, disabled; limited a little, Non-disabled; with non-limiting condition, Non-disabled; no condition), sex, age group and geographic breakdown. To ensure that individuals cannot be identified in the data, counts and populations have been rounded to the nearest 5, and counts under 10 have not been included.

Disability

The definition of disability used in the 2021 Census is aligned with the definition of disability under the Equality Act (2010) . A person is considered disabled if they self-report having a physical or mental health condition or illness that has lasted or is expected to last 12 months or more, and that this reduces their ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Please see the questions asked tab to see how disability was defined in 2021.

Index of Multiple Deprivation and Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation

National deciles and quintiles of area deprivation are created through ranking small geographical populations known as Lower layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs), based on their deprivation score from most to least deprived. They are then grouped into 10 (deciles) or 5 (quintiles) divisions based on the subsequent ranking. We have used the 2019 IMD and WIMD because this is the most up-to-date version at the time of publishing.

Population

The population is the number of usual residents of each sex, age group and geographic breakdown. To ensure that individuals cannot be identified in the data, counts and populations have been rounded to the nearest 5, and counts under 10 have not been included.

Usual resident

For Census 2021, a usual resident of the UK is anyone who, on census day, was in the UK and had stayed or intended to stay in the UK for a period of 12 months or more or had a permanent UK address and was outside the UK and intended to be outside the UK for less than 12 months.

Though research has been conducted on children with disabilities and on children in residential care settings, the intersections of these two topics has yet to be explored in depth. Notably, there is a lack of information surrounding disability measurement within residential care settings, highlighting a gap in the literature. It is estimated that a child with a disability is 17 times more likely to be placed in an institutionalized care setting than a child without a disability, and girls are more likely to be placed in an institution than boys. This report details research conducted in Kenya. ​​This study was being conducted as part of Changing the Way We Care (CTWWC), a global initiative on care reform, including in Kenya. The initiative seeks to influence key stakeholders – including governments, families of children living in residential care, and donors - to provide, safe, and nurturing family care for children and pathways for children in residential care to return to their families and ​communities. The purpose of this study was to plan and implement a pilot project to undertake the ​measurement of disability amongst children in residential care and to support the dissemination and use ​of findings in Kenya. ​For CTWWC, the goals were three-folds. ​◼ Be part of a global discussion on how to measure prevalence of disability amongst children, ​including children in care ​◼ Fulfil its commitment to disaggregate our results by disability status and learn about a vulnerable ​group of children ​◼ Equip case managers with knowledge and tools to identify children’s needs to help begin the ​process of addressing them ​The quantitative study involved implementing the UNICEF Child Functioning Module (CFM) using cross-sectional study design. The tool is administered to the caregiver of a child, mostly mothers. The tool has two versions, one for children between 2 years to 4 years of age with a total of 16 questions, and second for children between 5-17 years of age with 24 questions. There are eight domains covered in 2-4 years version including vision, hearing, mobility, fine motor, communication, learning, playing and controlling behavior. While 13 domains are covered in 5-17 years version. These include vision, hearing, mobility, self-care, communication, learning, remembering, concentration, accepting change, controlling behavior, making friends, anxiety and depression. ​The data collection was conducted with support from CTWWC staff and partners working with residential facilities for children in the participating facilities. This study was a collaboration between Changing the Way We Care (CTWWC) and Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit, Health Systems Program, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This report was written by Nukhba Zia, Sarena Ho, Joab Wako, Joanna Wakia, Abdulgafoor M Bachani. ​

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN) is an omnibus survey that collects data on a range of subjects commissioned by both the ONS internally and external clients (limited to other government departments, charities, non-profit organisations and academia).

Data are collected from one individual aged 16 or over, selected from each sampled private household. Personal data include data on the individual, their family, address, household, income and education, plus responses and opinions on a variety of subjects within commissioned modules.

The questionnaire collects timely data for research and policy analysis evaluation on the social impacts of recent topics of national importance, such as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the cost of living, on individuals and households in Great Britain.

From April 2018 to November 2019, the design of the OPN changed from face-to-face to a mixed-mode design (online first with telephone interviewing where necessary). Mixed-mode collection allows respondents to complete the survey more flexibly and provides a more cost-effective service for customers.

In March 2020, the OPN was adapted to become a weekly survey used to collect data on the social impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the lives of people of Great Britain. These data are held in the Secure Access study, SN 8635, ONS Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, 2019-2023: Secure Access. Other Secure Access OPN data cover modules run at various points from 1997-2019, on Census religion (SN 8078), cervical cancer screening (SN 8080), contact after separation (SN 8089), contraception (SN 8095), disability (SNs 8680 and 8096), general lifestyle (SN 8092), illness and activity (SN 8094), and non-resident parental contact (SN 8093).

From August 2021, as coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions were lifting across Great Britain, the OPN moved to fortnightly data collection, sampling around 5,000 households in each survey wave to ensure the survey remains sustainable.

The OPN has since expanded to include questions on other topics of national importance, such as health and the cost of living. For more information about the survey and its methodology, see the ONS OPN Quality and Methodology Information webpage.

Main Topics:
Each month's questionnaire consists of two elements: core questions, covering demographic information, are asked each month together with non-core questions that vary from month to month.

The non-core questions for this month were:

Disability and Function (Module MFF): this module was asked on behalf of the ONS to further understand the difficulties in daily functioning that people face. These questions were asked of everyone even if they have previously said that they have no long‐standing condition in the classificatory health questions.

This module consisted of 12 questions which ask whether respondents have difficulty with a range of functions including difficulties in hearing and concentrating. The answer options range from 'No difficulty' to 'Cannot do at all'. There are two questions which are routed. Question MFF_10 is only asked to respondents who answered that they feel worried, nervous or anxious and question MFF_12 is only asked if respondents answered that they feel depressed.