The prevalence of disabilities in the United States shows a clear correlation with age, with nearly half of Americans aged 75 and older experiencing some form of disability. This stark contrast to younger age groups highlights the increasing challenges faced by the elderly population in maintaining their independence and quality of life. Disability rates across age groups According to 2023 data, only 0.7 percent of children under 5 years old have a disability, compared to 6.3 percent of those aged 5 to 15. The percentage rises steadily with age, reaching 11.2 percent for adults between 21 and 64 years old. A significant jump occurs in the 65 to 74 age group, where 23.9 percent have a disability. The most dramatic increase is seen in those 75 and older, with 45.3 percent experiencing some form of disability. These figures underscore the importance of accessible services and support systems for older Americans. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) The prevalence of disabilities among younger Americans has significant implications for the education system. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law in the United States that guarantees the right to a free appropriate education for children with disabilities. In the 2021/22 academic year, 7.26 million disabled individuals aged 3 to 21 were covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This number includes approximately 25,000 children with traumatic brain injuries and 434,000 with intellectual disabilities.

In 2023, the U.S. states with the highest share of the population that had a disability were West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky. At that time, around 19.7 percent of the population of West Virginia had some form of disability. The states with the lowest rates of disability were New Jersey, Utah, and Minnesota. Disability in the United States A disability is any condition, either physical or mental, that impairs one’s ability to do certain activities. Some examples of disabilities are those that affect one’s vision, hearing, movement, or learning. It is estimated that around 14 percent of the population in the United States suffers from some form of disability. The prevalence of disability increases with age, with 46 percent of those aged 75 years and older with a disability, compared to just six percent of those aged 5 to 15 years. Vision impairment One common form of disability comes from vision impairment. In 2023, around 3.6 percent of the population of West Virginia had a vision disability, meaning they were blind or had serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses. The leading causes of visual disability are age-related and include diseases such as cataracts, glaucoma, and age-related macular degeneration. This is clear when viewing the prevalence of vision disability by age. It is estimated that 8.3 percent of those aged 75 years and older in the United States have a vision disability, compared to 4.3 percent of those aged 65 to 74 and only 0.9 percent of those aged 5 to 15 years.

This dataset presents the number of people with disabilities registered at various disability centers in Qatar from years 2016- 2023, categorized by age group and center name. It supports understanding of service distribution across age demographics and assists in planning specialized care and resources.

This dataset presents the number of people with disabilities in Qatar, categorized by nationality, gender, and type of functional difficulty. Difficulty types include communication, hearing, memory, vision, and self-care. The dataset supports inclusive planning and disability assessment at the national level.

The aim of this publication is to provide information about the key differences in healthcare between people with a learning disability and those without. It contains aggregated data on key health issues for people who are recorded by their GP as having a learning disability, and comparative data about a control group who are not recorded by their GP as having a learning disability. Eight new indicators were introduced in the 2023-24 reporting year for patients with and without a recorded learning disability. These relate to: • Patients treated with melatonin • Gender breakdown for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) • Anxiety prevalence Six indicators have been removed from the 2023-24 reporting year relating to: • Kidney disease • Epilepsy • Seizure frequency More information on these changes can be found in the Data Quality section of this publication. Data has been collected from participating practices using EMIS and Cegedim Healthcare Systems GP systems.

Disability, Independence and Dependency Situations Survey: Percentage of persons with disabilities, according to the most important care that the main carer provides, by group of disability and sex of the person with disabilities. National.

Disability, Independence and Dependency Situations Survey: Households according to the number of members in the household, the number of people with disabilities or limitations, by Autonomous Community and monthly household income. National.

Access Living is a service and advocacy center in Chicago, led and run by disabled people. They believe in driving positive change to create a more inclusive world for all people with disabilities, and they are committed to being their own best advocates. With a focus on creating a more accessible and just society, Access Living offers various services, resources, and opportunities for people with disabilities to get involved and take action.

As a leading organization in the disability rights movement, Access Living is dedicated to defending the rights of people with disabilities and promoting systemic change. Through their advocacy efforts, they work to address the unique challenges facing disabled people, including barriers to healthcare, education, employment, and transportation. With a strong presence in the Chicago community, Access Living continues to push for greater accessibility, inclusion, and opportunity for all individuals, regardless of disability.

Abstract

The 2007 Kenya National Survey for Persons with Disabilities (KNSPWD) was a national sample survey - the first of its kind to be conducted in Kenya - designed to provide up-to-date information for planning, monitoring and evaluating the various activities, programmes and projects intended to improve the wellbeing of persons with disabilities. The survey covered more than 14,000 households in a total of 600 clusters (436 rural and 164 urban).

The survey interviewed persons with disabilities of all ages in sampled areas to get estimates of their numbers; distribution; and demographic, socio-economic and cultural characteristics. The survey also sought to know the nature, types and causes of disabilities; coping mechanisms; nature of services available to them; and community perceptions and attitudes towards PWDs.

The survey was undertaken by the National Coordinating Agency for Population and Development (NCAPD) in collaboration with the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS); Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services (MGSCSS); Ministry of Health (MOH); and the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MOEST). Other participants were United Disabled Persons of Kenya (UDPK); Kenya Programmes of Disabled Persons (KPDP); Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (ADPK); and Africa Mental Health Foundation (AMHF). Technical and financial support came from the Department for International Development (DFID), the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Statistical Capacity Building Project (STATCAP) project. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) provided support for the design of survey instruments.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents) and all women aged between 12-49 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

While the survey intended to estimate the number of PWDs, it was realized that a significant proportion of these individuals reside in institutions, which are not part of the household sampling frame. However, a comprehensive list of institutions that existed did not form sufficient sampling frame for estimation of numbers of institution-based PWDs for the entire country. A mechanism had to be devised for incorporating these persons into the survey to supplement the data derived from the household-based survey.

The targeted survey population for the institutional based survey was defined as all people living in homes and occupying long-stay beds in public or private hospitals; or living in long-stay residential units for people with an intellectual, psychiatric/physical disability, vision or hearing impairments, or with multiple disabilities. The following types of institutions were covered: · Hospitals (acute care, chronic care hospitals, nursing homes) · Psychiatric institutions · Treatment centres for persons with physical disabilities · Residential special schools · Private and non-private group homes · Private and non-private children's homes · Orphanages · Private and non-private residences for senior citizens (Mji wa wazee) · Other residential institutions with people with disabilities

The sampling frame compiled for the institutional survey comprised all institutions indicated above. The frame included the name of the institution, type, number of individuals, location and type of disability. The frame was compiled from various sources, including MOH, MOEST, MSGSS and various organizations dealing with disabilities, among others.

In order to achieve representation, the institutions were first stratified according to location (provinces) and then by nature of disability. The institutions were further classified into two broad categories depending on nature and size (number of PWDs). All key institutions were sampled with certainty (that is, all selected in the sample). The remaining institutions within a province were arranged and serially listed by disability type and a systematic random sampling procedure used to select the sample.

A sample size of 102 institutions catering for different population sizes of PWDs was covered. Once the institutions were sampled, the next exercise involved selection of individuals for the survey. Five bands were created depending on the size of the sampled institution. The bands were: less than or equal to 30; 31-50; 51-100; 101-200; and above 200. A listing of all residents was compiled during the day of the interview and a systematic random sample drawn. Five respondents were selected from each of the sampled institutions with up to 30 PWDs, eight from those having 31-50, and ten from those having 51-100. For institutions having 100-200 PWDs, 15 were chosen, and from those having 201 and above, 20.

The KNSPWD household sample was constructed to allow for estimation of key indicators at the provincial level as well as of the urban and rural components separately. The survey utilized a multi-stage cluster sample design and was based on a master sample frame developed and maintained by KNBS. The master sampling frame is the National Sample Survey and Evaluation Programme (NASSEP) IV. It has 1,800 clusters (data collection area points) that were developed with probability proportional to size (PPS) from the enumeration areas (EAs) delineated during the 1999 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Of the 1,800 clusters, 1,260 are rural based and the other 540 are located in urban areas.

In the frame, the first stage involved selecting the census EAs using PPS and developing them into clusters. The process involved quick counting of the selected EA and dividing into segments depending on the measure of size (MOS). The MOS was defined as an average of 100 households, with lower and upper bounds of 50 and 149 households, respectively. The EAs that were segmented had only one segment selected randomly to form a cluster. The EAs that had fewer than 50 households were merged prior to the selection process. During the creation of NASSEP IV, other than each of the 69 districts being a stratum, the six major urban areas (Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and Thika) were further stratified into five income classes: upper, lower upper, middle, lower middle and lower. The aim was to ensure that different social classes within these areas were well represented in any time sample that was drawn.

The second sampling stage involved selecting clusters for the KNSPWD from all the clusters in the NASSEP IV master sampling frame. A total of 600 clusters (436 rural and 164 urban) was sampled from all the districts in the country with boundaries as defined in the 1999 Kenya population and housing census. The third stage of selection involved systematically sampling 25 households from each cluster, hence producing 15,000 households in total.

Mt. Elgon district was excluded from the survey because of persistent insecurity in the area. The effect of exclusion of the district in the sample is minimal since it contributes 0.5% of the population according to 1999 census.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Models of questionnaires and survey instruments developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), Washington Group Consortium and organizations in other countries were tailored to the Kenyan context. The purpose was not only to make the instruments responsive to the country situation, but also to ensure that the results would be comparable to those from other countries.

With input from a wide range of people who have worked in the area of disability, and who have conducted national surveys, a workshop was held to develop and adopt the following instruments for Kenya:

· Household questionnaire: Designed to collect background information at the household level for all the usual members as well as any visitors who slept in the household the night before the interview. This questionnaire was also used to screen PWDs by type to identify those who were eligible for the individual disability questionnaire. This instrument was administered to the most knowledgeable person in the household on the day of the visit. · Individual questionnaire: Administered to any PWDs who had been identified using the household questionnaire. The questionnaire included the following key sections: activity limitation; environmental factors; situation analysis; support services; education; employment and income; immediate surroundings; assistive devices; attitudes towards disability; and health and general well-being · Reproductive health questionnaire: Administered to all eligible females aged 12 to 49 who were living with any form of disability. It collected information on reproductive health. · Institutional questionnaire: Administered to the heads of the various categories of institutions serving PWDs. Randomly selected PWDs in these institutions were interviewed using the individual questionnaire. · Focus group discussion guide: Used to collect qualitative information from a group of 6-10 members within each of the sampled clusters. The groups comprised PWDs, community leaders, service providers, opinion leaders and teachers. The focus group discussions collected information on knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of community members about PWDs and the different services available for PWDs in the different communities. Likewise, focus group discussions were used to collect qualitative information about problems faced by PWDs, their coping mechanisms and their access to essential basic services, as well as an overview of community perceptions of PWDs and views on how best to

Graph and download economic data for Employed - With a Disability, 16 Years and over (LNU02074597) from Jun 2008 to Aug 2025 about disability, 16 years +, household survey, employment, and USA.

Disability, Independence and Dependency Situations Survey: Population with disabilities, according to the most important care provided by the main carer, by group of impairment and sex of the person with disabilities. National.

Users can access data pertaining to individuals with disabilities. Topics include but are not limited to: people with disabilities’ access to employment, technology, healthcare, and community based services. Background The Disability Statistics Center is based at the Institute for Health and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The Disability Statistics Center generates reports ranging from employment opportunities, Medicaid home and community-based services, mobility device use, computer and internet use, wheelchair use, vocational rehabilitation, education, medical expenditures, and functional limitations among people with disabilities. User functiona lity Data is presented in report or abstract form and can be downloaded in PDF or HTML formats by clicking on the publications link. All reports and abstracts use United States data. Additional data sources are listed under “Finding Disability Data” and include data from the United States as well as international data. Data Notes The data sources are clearly referenced for each article. The most recent publications are from 2003. There is no indication on the site when the data will be updated.

The number of disabled persons enrolled in Medicaid was projected to reach ************** in 2020. This enrollment group is expected to increase over the coming years and could reach ************ by 2027.

Disabled enrollees by state Medicaid is a public health insurance program that provides medical coverage to millions of Americans. Disabled individuals represent around ** percent of all Medicaid enrollees – children aged 18 years and under are the largest enrollment group. The state of California, which has the highest Medicaid expenditure, had slightly more than *********** disabled enrollees in 2014.

SSI beneficiaries will receive Medicaid The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created the opportunity for states to expand Medicaid and cover more low-income adults aged 64 years and under. The ACA established a new methodology to determine income eligibility for Medicaid. However, some mandatory groups are exempt from these income-based rules, including those individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The SSI program provides financial assistance to disabled persons, and beneficiaries are automatically eligible for Medicaid.

The number of the first season....................

Differences in the number and proportion of persons with and without disabilities, aged 15 years and over, by census metropolitan areas.

Table of INEBase Households according to the number of people with disabilities or limitations and the number of household members. National. Disability, Independence and Dependency Situations Survey

Disability, Independence and Dependency Situations Survey: Households according to type of disability expense incurred in the last 12 months and number of persons with disabilities in the household. Households with people with disabilities. National.

Estimates are for noninstitutionalized civilian population.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, disability describes “any condition of the body or mind (impairment) that makes it more difficult for the person with the condition to do certain activities (activity limitation) and interact with the world around them (participation restrictions).”People with disabilities have an increased risk for developing chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease. They also often spend more on healthcare costs and consequently may experience more financial hardship than those without a disability.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Estimated Percent of People with one or more Disabilities (Source: PolicyMap, Census ACS 2017-2021) by Census Tract.

Homeless Persons with One or More Disabilities