Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122245006
label
“Empowerment Through Civic Participation: A Study of the Political Behavior of People with Disabilities” – Report to the Disability Research Consortium
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122245006
contentType
document
title
“Empowerment Through Civic Participation: A Study of the Political Behavior of People with Disabilities” – Report to the Disability Research Consortium
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Counsel to the President (Clinton Administration)
Jonathan Young's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122245006
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7409251-20070143F-Seg3-015-010-2018
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
deb318e48029bb7b
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2007-0143-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Counsel Office
Series/Staff Member:
Jonathan Young
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
40202
FolderID:
Folder Title:
"Empowerment Through Civic Participation: A Study of the Political Behavior of People with
Disabilities" - Report to the Disability Research Consortium
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
112
1
8
2
EMPOWERMENT THROUGH CIVIC PARTICIPATION:
A STUDY OF THE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Final Report to the
Disability Research Consortium
Bureau of Economic Research
Rutgers University
and
New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council
April 1999
Douglas L. Kruse, Ph.D.
Kay Schriner, Ph.D.
School of Management and Labor Relations
Dept. of Rehabilitation Education and Research
Rutgers University
University of Arkansas
94 Rockafeller Road
346 N. West Avenue
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(732) 445-5991
(501) 575-6417
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lisa Schur, J.D., Ph.D.
Todd Shields, Ph.D.
School of Management and Labor Relations
Department of Political Science
Rutgers University
University of Arkansas
50 Labor Center Way
434 Old Main
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(732) 932-1743
(501) 575-6440
[email protected]
[email protected]
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
RUTGERS
Douglas L. Kruse
Department of Human Resource Management
School of Management and Labor Relations
94 Rockafeller Road Piscataway New Jersey 08854
732/445-5991
Fax: 732/445-2830
E-mail: [email protected]
June 6, 1999
Jonathan Young
Office of Public Liaison
The White House
122 OEOB
Washington, D.C. 20502
Dear Jonathan,
Good to see you at SDS! Enclosed is our report, as promised. Feedback and questions
are very welcome. Talk to you later!
Day Douglas Kruse
Sincerely yours,
Associate Professor
Executive Summary
EMPOWERMENT THROUGH CIVIC PARTICIPATION:
A STUDY OF THE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Final Report to the
Disability Research Consortium
Bureau of Economic Research
Rutgers University
and
New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council
April 1999
Douglas L. Kruse, Ph.D.
Kay Schriner, Ph.D.
School of Management and Labor Relations
Dept. of Rehabilitation Education and Research
Rutgers University
University of Arkansas
94 Rockafeller Road
346 N. West Avenue
Piscataway, NJ 08854
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(732) 445-5991
(501) 575-6417
[email protected]
[email protected]
Lisa Schur, J.D., Ph.D.
Todd Shields, Ph.D.
School of Management and Labor Relations
Department of Political Science
Rutgers University
University of Arkansas
50 Labor Center Way
434 Old Main
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(732) 932-1743
(501) 575-6440
[email protected]
[email protected]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Are people with disabilities as likely as those without disabilities to vote, and to engage in
other forms of political and civic participation? If not, why not? Is there a role for policies to
remove barriers or otherwise encourage greater participation by the 54 million Americans with
disabilities?
This study reports on a new national random-household telephone survey of 1,240
American citizens of voting age, conducted after the recent elections in November, 1998. The
disability questions from the upcoming 2000 Census were used to identify people with disabilities,
supplemented by additional questions about the nature, severity, and duration of the disability.
The sample was stratified so that interviews were conducted with 700 people with disabilities and
540 people without disabilities.
Survey respondents were asked standard questions about voting in 1996 and 1998, voter
registration, voting mobilization by political parties and others, and perceptions of the political
system. In addition, new questions were asked about actual and anticipated difficulties in voting
at a polling place, transportation modes and difficulties, and personal competencies.
Voter Turnout and Registration
The major findings on voter turnout and registration in 1998 are:
People with disabilities were on average about 20 percentage points less likely than those
without disabilities to vote, and 10 points less likely to be registered to vote, after adjusting
for differences in demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, and marital status).
The voting gap between people with and without disabilities is especially wide among those
who are age 65 or older, as shown in the figure below.
Age Patterns in Voter Turnout, November 1998
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Citizens without
disabilities
60.0%
Voter turnout
50.0%
Citizens with
disabilities
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
18
go
Age
If people with disabilities voted at the same rate as those without disabilities, there would have
been 4.6 million additional voters in 1998, raising the overall turnout rate by 2.5 percentage
points.
The one-third of people with disabilities who are employed were as likely as employed people
without disabilities to vote, while the two-thirds who are not employed were 17 percentage
points less likely to be registered, and 30 points less likely to vote, than non-employed people
without disabilities.
Political parties were less likely to contact people with disabilities in the 1998 campaigns.
While people with disabilities are less likely to view the political system as responsive to
"people like me," they are as likely as people without disabilities to follow government and
public affairs most of the time, and their lower voter turnout is not explained by their
perceptions of the political system or their perceived ability to participate.
The overall disability voting gap is reduced only from 20 to 15 percentage points after
accounting for other standard determinants of voting (such as mobilization, perceptions of the
political system, and income). In addition to being concentrated among older and non-
employed people with disabilities, low turnout is most likely among those who have difficulty
going outside alone, severe visual impairments, and mental impairments.
People with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to have encountered, or
expect, difficulties in voting at a polling place. Of those voting in the past ten years, 8% of
people with disabilities encountered such problems compared to less than 2% of people
without disabilities. Among those not voting within the past ten years, 27% of people with
disabilities would expect such problems compared to 4% of people without disabilities.
The particularly low voter turnout among those who have difficulty going outside alone,
despite the availability of absentee ballots, suggests that lack of access to polling places can dilute
the value of voting and sense of civic duty and connection to one's fellow citizens. Problems with
access to polling places as identified by respondent descriptions are split among general mobility,
getting to the polling place, and being able to vote once at the polling place. Among all people
with disabilities the percentages identifying such problems are as follows:
Problems encountered if
Problems expected if
voted in past 10 years
haven't voted in past
10 years
Any difficulty in voting at polling place
8.2%
27.5%
General mobility (walking, standing)
1.7%
10.3%
Getting to polling place
1.6%
8.8%
At polling place (getting inside, using
booth/machine, long lines, seeing ballot)
3.9%
10.1%
Other
1.4%
2.9%
ii
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter Act," was
designed to increase voter registration by offering registration services at drivers' license agencies
and other government service agencies. If this has had an effect, it appears similar for people with
and without disabilities: close to one-fourth of respondents have registered since the Act took
effect on January 1, 1995, close to one-tenth have registered at a driver's license agency, and
close to 1% have registered at a disability agency or other public assistance agency, in both the
disability and non-disability samples.
Other Forms of Political and Civic Participation
Apart from voting, are people with disabilities more or less likely to participate in other
political and civic activities? The survey asked whether respondents had engaged in seven other
forms of participation in the past 12 months:
With disabilities Without disabilities
1. Contributed money to political party or candidate
13%
16%
2. Written or spoken to elected representative/official
30%
40%
3. Attended political meeting
13%
15%
4. Written letter to newspaper
7%
9%
5. Contributed money to org. trying to influence
gov't policy or legislation
16%
22%
6. Otherwise worked with groups or on one's own
to change gov't laws or policies
14%
19%
7. Worked with others on community problem
24%
28%
The major findings with respect to other forms of political and civic participation are:
People with disabilities were 10 percentage points less likely than those without disabilities to
have engaged in any of these activities in the past twelve months, after accounting for
demographic characteristics.
The disability gap varies greatly, however, by activity. After accounting for demographic
characteristics, people with disabilities were as likely to have engaged in three of these
activities (attended political meeting, written letter to newspaper, otherwise worked with
groups or on one's own to change government laws or policies), and were:
5 points less likely to have contributed to a campaign or candidate,
9 points less likely to have contacted an elected representative or public official,
5 points less likely to have contributed to an organization trying to influence government
laws or policies, and
5.5 points more likely to have worked with others on a community problem.
iii
Lower participation in the above three activities, as with voting, is concentrated among those
who are older and have difficulty going outside (even though the activities can be done in the
home).
Just under one-tenth (8%) of people with disabilities had engaged in any of the activities on a
disability issue, while over two-fifths (43%) engaged in these activities only on non-disability
issues.
One-tenth (10%) of people with disabilities said that they had worked to change a private
organization's policies regarding people with disabilities (such as through talking to business
owners, or filing a lawsuit).
Implications
The overall results indicate that most people with disabilities feel well-qualified to
participate in politics, and are as likely as otherwise-similar people without disabilities to
participate in several non-electoral political and civic activities. They are, however, less likely on
average to vote, make contributions to campaigns or political organizations, or contact elected
representatives and public officials. The participation gaps are concentrated among people with
disabilities who are non-employed, older, and have difficulty going outside alone-those who are
employed and/or younger (18-44) are, in fact, about as likely as otherwise-similar people without
disabilities to engage in these activities.
The finding that participation is lowest among those who have difficulty going outside the
home alone-despite the fact that these forms of participation can be done inside the home-
indicates the importance of accessible transportation and interaction with mainstream society.
Isolation and confinement to one's home can decrease "social capital"-the social skills,
knowledge, connections, and identification developed from regular interaction with many other
people. The loss of social capital, through isolationism or ostracism, can cause a self-perpetuating
spiral into obscurity not only for the individual but also for the political ideas, experiences, and
groups the individual represents.
Feelings of isolation from mainstream society can only be heightened by difficulties in
voting, since voting is a basic act of citizenship in a democracy. Actual or expected problems in
voting at a polling place are highest among those who have difficulty going outside alone, and are
high among those with severe vision impairments and mental impairments. The lack of accessible
transportation and polling places marginalizes many people with disabilities, making them second-
class citizens who cannot publicly join others in exercising the right to vote, and weakening their
sense of connection to fellow citizens and mainstream society.
Just as the low employment levels of people with disabilities represent a waste of
economic resources, their low levels of voting and participation in several political activities
represent a waste of political and social resources. Democracies work best with an active,
engaged citizenry-only through full participation can individuals and groups expect to be
adequately and correctly represented by political leaders. Participation can have important
iv
personal benefits as well: democratic theorists such as John Stuart Mill have argued that only
through political involvement can one become truly empowered and perform as an enlightened
democratic citizen.
These findings support policies that seek to ensure fully accessible polling places and
transportation, as well as the need to communicate the fact of greater accessibility to those who
have not voted in the recent past. Among the policies that deserve serious scrutiny are:
an information campaign for government service agencies to promote better
implementation of the "Motor Voter Act,"
federal standards on polling place accessibility for all people with disabilities,
technical assistance to state and local election officials to promote accessibility, and
federal standards to ensure that all campaign activities (speeches, commercials, etc.) are
accessible to people with various impairments.
In addition, the fact that there is no voting gap between employed people with and without
disabilities indicates that employment-in addition to its important economic and social benefits-
can play an important role in increasing the social capital and political participation of people with
disabilities. This lends further weight to the ADA's goal of increasing employment among people
with disabilities.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i
Executive Summary
vi
Acknowledgments
Sections
I.
Introduction
1
Theory and Prior Literature
3
II.
10
III.
Methodology
IV.
Demographic and Disability Characteristics
13
V.
Voting and Other Forms of Participation: Basic Results
16
Demographic Characteristics and Participation
20
VI.
Disability Characteristics and Participation
25
VII.
Mobilization
28
VIII.
IX.
Political Interest, Efficacy, Competencies, and Participation
30
X.
Employment and Participation
34
36
XI.
Transportation and Participation
XII.
Group Involvement, Religious Attendance, and Participation
39
XIII.
Income and Participation
41
XIV.
Analyzing the Participation Gaps
44
47
XV.
Implications
51
References
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Appendix B: 2000 Census questions on disability
Tables
1. Demographic Characteristics and Comparison to Other Samples
2. Disability Characteristics
3. Voter Turnout and Registration
4. Problems in Voting at Polling Place
5. Other Forms of Participation
6. Demographic Characteristics and Participation
7. Prediction of Voting with Demographic Characteristics
8. Prediction of Other Forms of Participation with Demographic Characteristics
9. Disability Characteristics, Participation, and Voting Difficulties
10. Prediction of Participation with Disability Characteristics
11. Mobilization in 1998 Elections
12. Political Efficacy, Competencies, and Participation
13. Employment and Participation
14. Transportation and Political Participation
15. Group Involvement, Religious Attendance, and Participation
16. Household Income and Political Participation
17. Prediction of Voting with All Characteristics
Figure 1: Age Patterns in Voter Turnout, November 1998
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Are people with disabilities as likely as those without disabilities to vote, and to engage in
other forms of political and civic participation? If not, why not? Is there a role for policies to
remove barriers or otherwise encourage greater participation by the 54 million Americans with
disabilities?
This study reports on a new national random-household telephone survey of 1,240
American citizens of voting age, conducted after the recent elections in November, 1998. The
disability questions from the upcoming 2000 Census were used to identify people with disabilities,
supplemented by additional questions about the nature, severity, and duration of the disability. The
sample was stratified so that interviews were conducted with 700 people with disabilities and 540
people without disabilities.
Survey respondents were asked standard questions about voting in 1996 and 1998, voter
registration, voting mobilization by political parties and others, and perceptions of the political
system. In addition, new questions were asked about actual and anticipated difficulties in voting at
a polling place, transportation modes and difficulties, and personal competencies.
Voter Turnout and Registration
The major findings on voter turnout and registration in 1998 are:
People with disabilities were on average about 20 percentage points less likely than those
without disabilities to vote, and 10 points less likely to be registered to vote, after adjusting for
differences in demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, education, and marital status).
The voting gap between people with and without disabilities is especially wide among those
who are age 65 or older, as shown in the figure below.
Age Patterns in Voter Turnout, November 1998
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Citizens without
disabilities
60.0%
Voter turnout
50.0%
Citizens with
disabilities
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Age
i
If people with disabilities voted at the same rate as those without disabilities, there would have
been 4.6 million additional voters in 1998, raising the overall turnout rate by 2.5 percentage
points.
The one-third of people with disabilities who are employed were as likely as employed people
without disabilities to vote, while the two-thirds who are not employed were 17 percentage
points less likely to be registered, and 30 points less likely to vote, than non-employed people
without disabilities.
Political parties were less likely to contact people with disabilities in the 1998 campaigns.
While people with disabilities are less likely to view the political system as responsive to
"people like me," they are as likely as people without disabilities to follow government and
public affairs most of the time, and their lower voter turnout is not explained by their
perceptions of the political system or their perceived ability to participate.
The overall disability voting gap is reduced only from 20 to 15 percentage points after
accounting for other standard determinants of voting (such as mobilization, perceptions of the
political system, and income). In addition to being concentrated among older and non-
employed people with disabilities, low turnout is most likely among those who have difficulty
going outside alone, severe visual impairments, and mental impairments.
People with disabilities are more likely than those without disabilities to have encountered, or
expect, difficulties in voting at a polling place. Of those voting in the past ten years, 8% of
people with disabilities encountered such problems compared to less than 2% of people without
disabilities. Among those not voting within the past ten years, 27% of people with disabilities
would expect such problems compared to 4% of people without disabilities.
The particularly low voter turnout among those who have difficulty going outside alone,
despite the availability of absentee ballots, suggests that lack of access to polling places can dilute
the value of voting and sense of civic duty and connection to one's fellow citizens. Problems with
access to polling places as identified by respondent descriptions are split among general mobility,
getting to the polling place, and being able to vote once at the polling place. Among all people with
disabilities the percentages identifying such problems are as follows:
Problems encountered if
Problems expected if
voted in past 10 years
haven't voted in past
10 years
Any difficulty in voting at polling place
8.2%
27.5%
General mobility (walking, standing)
1.7%
10.3%
Getting to polling place
1.6%
8.8%
At polling place (getting inside, using
booth/machine, long lines, seeing ballot)
3.9%
10.1%
Other
1.4%
2.9%
ii
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the "Motor Voter Act," was
designed to increase voter registration by offering registration services at drivers' license agencies
and other government service agencies. If this has had an effect, it appears similar for people with
and without disabilities: close to one-fourth of respondents have registered since the Act took
effect on January 1, 1995, close to one-tenth have registered at a driver's license agency, and close
to 1% have registered at a disability agency or other public assistance agency, in both the disability
and non-disability samples.
Other Forms of Political and Civic Participation
Apart from voting, are people with disabilities more or less likely to participate in other
political and civic activities? The survey asked whether respondents had engaged in seven other
forms of participation in the past 12 months:
With disabilities Without disabilities
1. Contributed money to political party or candidate
13%
16%
2. Written or spoken to elected representative/official
30%
40%
3. Attended political meeting
13%
15%
4. Written letter to newspaper
7%
9%
5. Contributed money to org. trying to influence
gov't policy or legislation
16%
22%
6. Otherwise worked with groups or on one's own
to change gov't laws or policies
14%
19%
7. Worked with others on community problem
24%
28%
The major findings with respect to other forms of political and civic participation are:
People with disabilities were 10 percentage points less likely than those without disabilities to
have engaged in any of these activities in the past twelve months, after accounting for
demographic characteristics.
The disability gap varies greatly, however, by activity. After accounting for demographic
characteristics, people with disabilities were as likely to have engaged in three of these activities
(attended political meeting, written letter to newspaper, otherwise worked with groups or on
one's own to change government laws or policies), and were:
5 points less likely to have contributed to a campaign or candidate,
9 points less likely to have contacted an elected representative or public official,
5 points less likely to have contributed to an organization trying to influence government
laws or policies, and
5.5 points more likely to have worked with others on a community problem.
iii
Lower participation in the above three activities, as with voting, is concentrated among those
who are older and have difficulty going outside (even though the activities can be done in the
home).
Just under one-tenth (8%) of people with disabilities had engaged in any of the activities on a
disability issue, while over two-fifths (43%) engaged in these activities only on non-disability
issues.
One-tenth (10%) of people with disabilities said that they had worked to change a private
organization's policies regarding people with disabilities (such as through talking to business
owners, or filing a lawsuit).
Implications
The overall results indicate that most people with disabilities feel well-qualified to
participate in politics, and are as likely as otherwise-similar people without disabilities to
participate in several non-electoral political and civic activities. They are, however, less likely on
average to vote, make contributions to campaigns or political organizations, or contact elected
representatives and public officials. The participation gaps are concentrated among people with
disabilities who are non-employed, older, and have difficulty going outside alone-those who are
employed and/or younger (18-44) are, in fact, about as likely as otherwise-similar people without
disabilities to engage in these activities.
The finding that participation is lowest among those who have difficulty going outside the
home alone-despite the fact that these forms of participation can be done inside the home-
indicates the importance of accessible transportation and interaction with mainstream society.
Isolation and confinement to one's home can decrease "social capital"-the social skills,
knowledge, connections, and identification developed from regular interaction with many other
people. The loss of social capital, through isolationism or ostracism, can cause a self-perpetuating
spiral into obscurity not only for the individual but also for the political ideas, experiences, and
groups the individual represents.
Feelings of isolation from mainstream society can only be heightened by difficulties in
voting, since voting is a basic act of citizenship in a democracy. Actual or expected problems in
voting at a polling place are highest among those who have difficulty going outside alone, and are
high among those with severe vision impairments and mental impairments. The lack of accessible
transportation and polling places marginalizes many people with disabilities, making them second-
class citizens who cannot publicly join others in exercising the right to vote, and weakening their
sense of connection to fellow citizens and mainstream society.
Just as the low employment levels of people with disabilities represent a waste of economic
resources, their low levels of voting and participation in several political activities represent a waste
of political and social resources. Democracies work best with an active, engaged citizenry-only
through full participation can individuals and groups expect to be adequately and correctly
represented by political leaders. Participation can have important personal benefits as well:
iv
democratic theorists such as John Stuart Mill have argued that only through political involvement
can one become truly empowered and perform as an enlightened democratic citizen.
These findings support policies that seek to ensure fully accessible polling places and
transportation, as well as the need to communicate the fact of greater accessibility to those who
have not voted in the recent past. Among the policies that deserve serious scrutiny are:
an information campaign for government service agencies to promote better implementation
of the "Motor Voter Act,"
federal standards on polling place accessibility for all people with disabilities,
technical assistance to state and local election officials to promote accessibility, and
federal standards to ensure that all campaign activities (speeches, commercials, etc.) are
accessible to people with various impairments.
In addition, the fact that there is no voting gap between employed people with and without
disabilities indicates that employment-in addition to its important economic and social benefits-
can play an important role in increasing the social capital and political participation of people with
disabilities. This lends further weight to the ADA's goal of increasing employment among people
with disabilities.
V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study received valuable help from a number of sources. Major funding for the survey
was provided by the New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council through the Disability
Research Consortium of Rutgers University, administered by Monroe Berkowitz and Carol Harvey.
Supplemental funding to increase the size of the disability sample was provided by the School of
Management and Labor Relations of Rutgers University. The survey was carried out by the
Rutgers Center for Public Interest Polling, directed by Janice Ballou, with interviewing
subcontracted to the New York survey firm Schulman, Ronca, and Bucuvalas. Ongoing support
and advice have been provided by members of the Coalition on Access to Political Elections
(CAPE). Advice on constructing the disability questions for the survey was provided by Michele
Adler, Monroe Berkowitz, Tom Hale, Mitch LaPlante, Jim Robinson, Gale Whiteneck, and Barbara
Wilson, and advice on political questions was provided by Lloyd Leonard, Vicki Paris, and Jim
Robinson. Ken Schriner provided very useful help in data analysis. The authors are responsible
for any errors or omissions.
vi
I.
INTRODUCTION
Political participation is fundamental to individual and group empowerment in a
democracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the growth and success of the disability rights
movement over the past 25 years. The participants in this movement have helped empower people
with disabilities through changes in public policies-most notably the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act-and the policies and practices of private institutions. In addition, their
participation has helped to reshape societal attitudes and assumptions regarding disability,
increasing the visibility of people with disabilities and combatting stereotypes of people with
disabilities as passive objects of charity.
While there has been some attention to the development of the disability rights movement
(e.g., Shapiro, 1993), and efforts by politicians to attract the votes of people with disabilities (e.g.,
President Clinton's and Bob Dole's appeals for the disability vote in 1996), there has been very
little study of the civic and political participation of people with disabilities in general. Recent
research using existing datasets has produced some evidence that voter turnout is lower among
people with disabilities (to be reviewed), but these data throw little light on the reasons for the
lower turnout, or on differential participation rates by type or severity of disability. Is the lower
turnout among people with disabilities due to physical barriers, such as inaccessible polling places
or transportation problems? Is it instead due to social factors, such as decreased social contact that
lessens recruitment opportunities and social pressure to vote? Or is it primarily due to
psychological factors, such as alienation from society or a lower sense of efficacy? In addition to
the recent studies on voter turnout, some research has provided insights into how individuals with
disabilities become engaged in other forms of political participation (Schur, 1997, 1998), but there
has been no broad-based evidence comparing the types, patterns, and determinants of political
1
participation between people with and without disabilities.
This study reports on a nationwide stratified-random telephone survey following the
November 1998 elections, covering 700 citizens with disabilities and 540 citizens without
disabilities. The questions addressed are:
1. How do registration and voting rates compare between people with and without
disabilities (before and after controlling for other personal characteristics), both overall
and among different demographic segments?
2. How do other forms of political participation-both electoral (e.g., working for or
contributing to campaigns) and non-electoral (e.g., lobbying, attending
demonstrations)-compare between people with and without disabilities?
3. To what extent can differences in electoral and other forms of political participation be
traced to physical, economic, social, and psychological factors?
4. What policies can increase political participation among people with disabilities?
The next section briefly discusses theories of why people engage in political and civic
participation, and relates this to disability concerns and prior studies of voter turnout, as
background for the current study.
2
II. THEORY AND PRIOR LITERATURE
Participation theorists have divided the factors influencing participation into several
categories. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995) divide the factors affecting political and civic
participation into three categories: resources ("Are you able to participate?"), psychology ("Do
you want to participate?"), and recruitment ("Did anyone ask you to participate?"). Resources
include time, money, and civic skills; psychological factors include political interest, sense of
political efficacy, civic values, group consciousness and commitment to specific policies; and
recruitment may come through formal or informal networks in work, church, or political
organizations. Rosenstone and Hansen (1993) take a different approach, dividing the factors that
affect participation into "individual influences" and "political influences." Individual influences
are represented by personal costs and resources (the demands that participation makes on one's
"money, time, skill, knowledge, and self-confidence") which interact with personal rewards,
interests, and beliefs regarding participation. While these help predict which people participate,
political influences-social networks and strategic mobilization efforts-help predict when they
participate.
Many researchers have found that factors identified by these theorists exert strong
influences on political participation. Voting has been found to be strongly and positively related
to the resources of education and income, as well as to employment and union membership
which can represent recruitment and mobilization networks (Cassel and Hill, 1981; Shaffer,
1981; Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Teixera, 1987; Leighley and Nagler, 1992; Miller and
Shanks, 1996). Psychological factors are also clearly important; in particular, declines in
feelings of political efficacy and partisan identification are linked to the decline in voter turnout
(Teixera, 1987). Age and marital status also strongly predict voter turnout, which may reflect a
3
combination of resource, recruitment, and psychological factors (Wolfinger and Rosenstone,
1980; Teixera, 1987; Leighley and Nagler, 1992; Stoker and Jennings, 1995; Miller and Shanks,
1996). Age is strongly and positively related to voter turnout, which Miller and Shanks (1996)
attribute to differences between generations, since voting rates within a generation rise only
through one's third election (age 26-29). While most studies find a positive relation between
marriage and voter turnout, Stoker and Jennings (1995) find that recent marriage appears to have
an overall depressing effect on voter turnout among young adults, which they attribute to time
and energy costs of recent major life transitions.
Disability can affect many of the factors thought to influence participation. Most
fundamentally, many disabilities limit people's physical or mental resources, often requiring that
extra time, effort, and money be spent to compensate for the limitations. Securing adequate
transportation can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive, and architectural barriers can
make it harder for people with disabilities to participate in public life. People with disabilities
have lower employment levels, constraining financial resources and increasing the likelihood of
living in poverty.¹ In addition, they tend to have lower educational levels, diminishing the
resource of civic skills provided through education. 2
Disability is often accompanied by increased isolation. Verba et al. (1995) note that people
who are isolated are unlikely to learn the skills necessary for effective political participation, to
develop a sense of membership in a group with a common political purpose, or to be recruited by
political activists. Some previous surveys have found that people with disabilities are less likely
1
Only 24.5% of people with severe disabilities are employed, compared to 74.8% of adults
without disabilities, while adults with severe disabilities are more than three times as likely to live in
poverty households (Kruse, 1997: Tables 1, 6).
2
Only 60.3% of adults with severe disabilities have completed 12 or more years of schooling,
compared to 80.4% of adults without disabilities (Kruse, 1997: Table 3).
4
than non-disabled persons to be involved in community life, including participation in volunteer,
religious, recreational, or other groups or activities (International Center for the Disabled, 1986: 41;
Louis Harris and Associates, 1998). Isolation sometimes reflects the lack of financial resources,
since it is often expensive to obtain renovations or modified vehicles that increase the ability to
participate in outside activities. Clearly, the lower employment rates noted above contribute to
increased isolation and fewer opportunities for political recruitment.
Finally, disability can have psychological effects that influence participation. Many people
with disabilities encounter stigma and discrimination (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1983;
Yuker, 1988), which several studies have concluded is responsible for at least some of the lower
employment and earnings of people with disabilities (summarized in Johnson and Baldwin, 1993).
Stigma and discrimination may combine with isolation and limits on resources to diminish feelings
of personal efficacy and control, which may in turn affect political participation. Stigma may often
inhibit politicization (as pointed out by Hahn, 1987, and Scotch, 1988), but it can also motivate
some people to engage in political action to fight stigma and discrimination, as shown by the
growth of the disability rights movement (Shapiro, 1993).
In sum, constraints on resources and increased isolation would be expected to depress
participation among people with disabilities, while psychological factors may decrease or increase
participation.
Existing evidence indicates that voter turnout, which may be the most basic form of
political participation, is lower among people with disabilities.⁴ Results from five studies are
3
Anspach (1979) presents a theoretical model of "stratagems for stigma management" identifying activism
as one response to disability, occurring when one has a positive self-concept and rejects society's devaluation of
people with disabilities. Other possible responses in her model include "normalization" (trying to appear as
"normal" as possible while minimizing or rationalizing differences associated with disability), "disassociation"
(resentment and avoidance of non-disabled people) and "retreatism" (giving up and withdrawing from society).
4
The first row is drawn from Schur and Kruse (1997); the second row is drawn from Current Population
5
summarized below.
Election
Disability
Disability
Non-disability
year
sample
turnout
turnout
Gap
1) 1992
People w/SCI's
56%
71%
15%
2) 1994
Non-employed
33%
54%
21%
3) 1992-96
Non-employed
57%
71%
14%
4) 1996
Non-employed
44%
65%
21%
4) 1996
Disability households 33%
49%
16%
These five data sources use very different samples: the first is based on a survey of New Jersey
residents with spinal cord injuries (SCI's); the next three are based on respondents to national
surveys who report being out of the labor force due to a disability⁵; and the fifth is based on
respondents to a national survey who said that someone in the household has a disability, and
answered an intention-to-vote question just prior to the 1996 elections (although the voting question
was asked of the respondent, who may not have been the person with a disability). Despite
important differences in the samples and disability measures, the results are fairly consistent: the
turnout of people with disabilities is 14-21 percentage points lower than that of people without
disabilities.
Absentee voting can be an attractive alternative for people with mobility impairments or
other transportation difficulties. Two of these studies indicate that absentee voting is higher among
people with disabilities, particularly for those with mobility impairments from an SCI. Voters with
SCI's in 1992 were five times as likely as voters in the general population to vote by absentee ballot
Survey (CPS) data analyzed by Shields, Schriner, and Schriner (1998a); the third row is drawn from National
Election Studies data analyzed by LoBianca (1998); the fourth row is from CPS data analyzed by Shields and
Schriner; and the fifth row is drawn from a National Organization on Disability press release, December 1996.
5 A few (3%) of those in the National Election Study dataset who said they were "permanently disabled" rather than
employed later indicated that they were employed, but 97% of this disability group was not employed at survey
time.
6
(35% compared to 5%), while voters with disabilities in 1994 were twice as likely as those without
disabilities to vote by absentee ballot (13% compared to 7%)(Schur and Kruse, 1997; Shields,
Schriner, and Schriner, 1998a).
Three of these data sources contain additional variables that have been used to explore
how voter turnout is related to characteristics of the disability population, and the factors that may
help explain the lower overall turnout of people with disabilities. One noteworthy finding in both
the 1992 and 1994 election studies is that turnout continues to be lower on average for people with
disabilities after controlling for a variety of personal characteristics.⁶ The size of the voting gap,
though, varies along several dimensions. One key finding is that the voting gap varies with age:
While voter turnout rises strongly with age in the general population, it rises only weakly with age
in the disability population, and begins decreasing at about age 55. The result is that voter turnout is
only slightly depressed among young people with disabilities, and more strongly depressed among
older people with disabilities.
Employment also appears to be a major factor. Both the 1992 and 1994 election studies
found lower turnout among non-employed people with disabilities, but the former study also found
that turnout was almost identical between employed people in the general population and the one-
third of people with SCI's who are employed. The voting gap still exists after controlling for
income in these two studies, indicating that the importance of employment is not completely
explained by the resources provided by income.
Transportation problems may also contribute to the low turnout of people with
disabilities. The 1992 election study found that 30% of people with SCI's were not able to drive,
6
Both studies control for age, gender, race, marriage, education, and employment status, while the 1992
study also controls for weekly pay and job characteristics, and the 1994 study also controls for region, urban area,
and family income. The 1992-96 study of nonemployed persons controlled for education and income but no other
personal characteristics.
7
and voter turnout was 20 percentage points lower among this group (after controlling for other
personal characteristics). Voting clearly does not depend on driving ability (since one can vote
by absentee ballot, or be taken to the polling place by others), suggesting that the greater ease of
mobility provided by driving ability may have important social and psychological effects through
increasing opportunities for recruitment or identification with mainstream society.
Direct measures of recruitment are available in the 1992-96 election study, where people
were asked whether they had been contacted by a political party or anyone else to encourage
them to vote or influence their vote. While this is a strong predictor of voter turnout in general,
the non-employed people with disabilities in this study had only slightly lower levels of such
contacts, so this accounted for little of their lower turnout. Similarly, people with SCI's were
found to have slightly lower levels of participation in several social activities in the 1992 election
study, but the lower participation did not appear to account for the turnout gap.
Psychological factors have been directly examined in two studies. One finding from a 1987
Harris poll of people with disabilities is that interest in politics is a strong predictor of turnout, as it
is in the general population (Shields, Schriner, and Schriner, 1998b). Feelings of political
efficacy-that one is qualified to participate in politics, and that the political system is responsive to
people like oneself-are much higher among voters than non-voters in the general population. The
one study with comparative information indicates that political efficacy is lower among non-
employed people with disabilities than among people in the general population (although this may
be due to lack of employment or other factors rather than to disability)(LoBianca, 1998), but it is
not a strong predictor of voter turnout in the disability population (LoBianca, 1998; Shields,
Schriner, and Schriner, 1998b). The perception of people with disabilities as a minority group was
linked to lower voter turnout among people with disabilities in 1984 (perhaps reflecting alienation
8
from the political system, particularly before the ADA was passed), although not in 1986 (Shields,
Schriner, and Schriner, 1998b). These results indicate that psychological factors are important in
voter turnout of people with disabilities, but do not point to factors that account for the lower
turnout among people with disabilities.
In sum, prior research provides consistent evidence of a voting gap of 14-21 points between
people with and without disabilities, and several clues but no firm answers as to what accounts for
the lower turnout. There has been little research on other forms of political and civic participation
among people with disabilities. Schur (1997, 1998) explores the characteristics of political and
group involvement of 64 people with SCI's, using in-depth qualitative interviews supplemented
with questionnaire data. She finds a wide variety of responses to traumatic SCI, some discouraging
but others encouraging political involvement. Political participation is discouraged by isolation and
decreased resources that contribute to fatalism, as well as by efforts to "normalize" and distance
oneself from others with disabilities, or by a focus on self-help following SCI. The political
activists have lived with their injuries for a longer time on average than other interviewees,
providing more opportunity to come to terms with SCI, join disability groups, learn about disability
issues, and go through a gradual process of politicization. While feelings of political and personal
efficacy contributed to political work, such work in turn led to a greater sense of efficacy for several
activists, and new definitions and perceptions of discrimination and stigma. The experiences of
most activists indicate that social context and circumstances are very important in who becomes
politically active.
9
III. METHODOLOGY
This study uses a new nationwide survey to provide data on political and civic participation
among people with and without disabilities. The Rutgers Center for Public Interest Polling
conducted the household telephone survey using random-digit-dialing procedures, beginning one
day after the national elections on November 4, 1998 and finishing on December 17, 1998. The
sample was stratified so that people with disabilities were intentionally oversampled (as described
below), resulting in a final sample of 540 adult citizens without disabilities and 700 adult citizens
with disabilities. To ensure that deaf people would not be undercounted, responses to dialed calls
were analyzed to identify the presence of TTY machines.
The survey form is reproduced as Appendix A, providing the questions and skip patterns
used in coding the survey into a Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software
package. A number of the questions use standard wording from the Current Population Survey
(CPS) and American National Election Survey (ANES), to ensure high-quality questions and
enable later comparisons. The nine sections of the survey are:
A. Screening questions for age, citizenship, and disability;
B. Disability type and duration, and need for assistance;
C. Voting, registration, and mobilization;
D. Political efficacy and other psychological measures;
E. Other forms of political and group participation;
F. Transportation;
G. Employment;
H. Religion;
I. Demographics.
The screening questions used to identify individuals with disabilities (A3-A7) were built
upon the six disability questions being used in the 2000 Census (reproduced in Appendix B).
Apart from changing the wording to ask about citizens age 18 or older, only one Census question
10
was re-worded. In order to capture limitations in all major life activities and not just in work (in
line with the broad ADA disability definition), the Census question regarding difficulty working
at a job or business was replaced with: "Of those 18 or older, does anyone have a long-term
health problem or impairment that limits the kind or amount of work, housework, or other
activities he or she can do?" In addition, while maintaining the Census wording, the question to
identify "blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment" was broken into four
parts to identify each of those conditions separately (A4a-A4d), and the question to identify
difficulty "learning, remembering, or concentrating" was broken into two parts to identify
separately any difficulty "learning" and "remembering or concentrating" (A6a-A6b). Those who
answered "no" to all of the above questions were asked whether anyone in the household
considered himself or herself to have a disability (A7a), or was considered by others to have a
disability (A7b), using question wording from the Harris/N.O.D. disability survey (Louis Harris
and Associates, 1998). In total, twelve questions were used to identify disability (counting the
parts of the two split-up Census questions as separate questions).
If there were positive answers to any of these twelve questions, the household was
considered to be a disability household (although it should be noted that the presence of an
impairment or activity limitation does not mean the person considers himself or herself to have a
disability-such self-perceptions were measured separately). If the respondent referred to more
than one person in answering these questions, the interviewer asked about the characteristics of
the person with the most recent birthday (to ensure random selection among those with
disabilities). If the respondent gave negative answers to each of the twelve disability questions,
the household was considered to be a non-disability household.
Interviews were completed with respondents in only the first 540 non-disability
11
households, so that more time could be devoted to interviewing people with disabilities.
Resources were available to locate and conduct interviews in 700 disability households, with an
additional 1900 non-disability households screened out in the course of identifying the disability
households. Therefore people with disabilities were intentionally oversampled, both to increase
the confidence in conclusions drawn from the disability sample and to allow meaningful analysis of
different types of disabilities.
In the 700 disability households a total of 788 adult citizens were identified as having an
impairment or activity limitation reflected in the twelve questions, along with 625 adult citizens
who do not have such an impairment or activity limitation. The non-disability households in which
interviews were completed have 1055 adult citizens, while the screened-out non-disability
households have 3869 adult citizens. Therefore of all adult citizens in the houses contacted, 12.4%
(788/6337) are identified by these questions as having a disability. This is higher than the 11.0% in
the Current Population Survey who respond that they have a "work disability" (health condition
limiting the kind or amount of work they can do), but lower than the 25.1% in the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) who are age 18 or over and identified as having a
disability due to a significant impairment or activity limitation. The lower prevalence in this survey
compared to the SIPP is likely due to: 1) the more detailed questions asked in SIPP (27 total) to
identify impairments and activity limitations, increasing the likelihood of a "yes" answer to at least
one question; 2) the fact that the questions in our survey were asked at the household level, rather
than about each person as in SIPP-person-specific questions are more likely to yield positive
answers as the respondent focuses on each individual; and 3) differences in survey design-the
SIPP disability supplement is given to households that are already comfortable with answering
questions and have built a rapport with the interviewer, while this survey's disability questions are
12
asked at the beginning of a survey in which there has been no prior contact or rapport with the
interviewer, so that respondents are less likely to reveal possibly stigmatizing information about
impairments and activity limitations.
In any survey using randomization procedures there will be differences between the
population and the sample. To take account of such differences and ensure that they do not skew
the results, the cases were weighted to reflect the age and regional distribution of the disability and
non-disability adult populations, using data on these distributions from the Survey of Income and
Program Participation. Individuals in households with several adult citizens have a lower
probability of being interviewed (since only one person per household is interviewed), so that cases
were also weighted by number of adult citizens in the household in order to make the results as
representative as possible.⁷ In all reported figures, the cases have been accordingly weighted.
IV. DEMOGRAPHIC AND DISABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
How does the current sample compare to other data on people with disabilities? The main
source used for generating estimates of the disability population is the Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP). Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of the disability and
non-disability samples from the current survey and SIPP, and Table 2 makes such comparisons
with respect to the distribution of impairments and activity limitations of the disability samples.
The distributions of demographic characteristics, for both the disability and non-disability
samples, are quite similar between the two surveys (Table 1). Women are slightly more likely to
7
Weighting by household size is theoretically correct, but is done by only one of the major national polling
organizations (Voss et al. 1995). The results in this study are affected little by household size weighting. Gelman
and Little (1998) also explore how single-person households may be underrepresented due to a lower likelihood that
someone is at home to answer the phone; in the current survey, however, the distributions of disability and non-
disability household sizes are very close to those in the general population.
13
have disabilities, as revealed by their greater prevalence in the disability sample (54.6%) than in the
non-disability sample (51.1%).⁸ People with disabilities are less likely to be currently married with
a spouse present, and more likely to be divorced or widowed. The race and ethnic distributions are
similar between the disability and non-disability samples in both surveys.⁹ The age distributions
strongly indicate that people with disabilities are likely to be older: both surveys show that people
with disabilities are an average 13-15 years older than people without disabilities, and more than
one-third of people with disabilities are age 65 or older. They are also more likely than people
without disabilities to live in rural areas.
The disability characteristics of those in the current survey's and SIPP's disability samples
are compared in Table 2. (Since the disability questions were built on the 2000 Census, a better
comparison can be done once the Census data are available.) While most measures are not strictly
comparable due to different question wording in the two surveys, comparisons of similar questions
indicate that the prevalence of impairments and activity limitations is fairly similar across the
surveys. Close to three-fifths of respondents in both surveys report a limitation in work,
housework, or other activities (although SIPP asks just about work and housework), while about
one-fifth have a severe vision impairment and one-fifth have a severe hearing impairment. The
current survey records about three-fifths (62.5%) who have difficulty with walking, climbing stairs,
reaching, lifting, or carrying; less than one-tenth (8.3%) who use wheelchairs; and almost one-
fourth (23.0%) who use canes, crutches, or walkers-each of these is somewhat larger than the
SIPP percentage (although SIPP does not ask about reaching or carrying).
One-tenth of those in the current survey's disability sample report a learning disability
8
The gender figures are identical between the current survey and SIPP samples because of the weighting of
the current survey to match the SIPP sample by gender and region.
9
Smaller percentages are identified as "white" in the current survey, but this difference large disappears if
one distributes those saying "other" race proportionally among the categories.
14
(10.0%), while close to one-third report difficulty remembering or concentrating (30.0%); both
figures are higher than the percentages in the SIPP disability sample reporting learning disabilities
and other mental conditions (although "difficulty remembering or concentrating" may be a broader
measure than the mental conditions asked about in SIPP). Close to one-sixth (17.4%) of the current
survey's disability sample report difficulty with activities inside the home, one-fourth (25.2%)
report difficulty going outside the home alone, and almost one-third (31.9%) report needing help
with any daily activities-each of these percentages is somewhat higher than in the SIPP disability
sample.
Finally, 3.6% of the current survey's disability sample did not report any of the foregoing
impairments or activity limitations, but nonetheless reported that they consider themselves, or are
considered by others, to have a disability. Of all those in the disability sample, close to three-fifths
(58.4%) said that they consider themselves to have a disability, and a similar number said that they
are considered by others to have a disability.
The current survey asked respondents for the major medical condition(s) causing an
impairment or activity limitation, and for the person's age at which this medical condition began.
As shown in Table 2, about one-fifth of those in the disability sample have disabilities from
childhood-beginning before age 18-with 8.1% beginning at birth or in the first year. An
additional one-fifth of the disabilities began during ages 18-34, one-fifth began during ages 34-49,
one-fifth began during ages 50-64, and one-fifth began at age 65 or older.
Therefore while there were differences in methods and question wordings between the
current survey and SIPP, the best available comparisons indicate that the distributions of
impairments and activity limitations are generally similar, so that the current survey's disability
sample appears representative of the disability population.
15
V. VOTING AND OTHER FORMS OF PARTICIPATION: BASIC RESULTS
a) Voting and Registration Levels
How do the voting and registration levels of people with disabilities compare to those of
people without disabilities? The basic results are presented in Table 3, where it can be seen that
53.4% of the disability sample reports voting in November, 1998 compared to 59.5% of the non-
disability sample-a statistically significant difference of 6.1%. These reported voting rates are
higher than the 38.9% rate calculated from actual votes cast, reflecting overreporting of voting on
the survey.¹⁰ Such overreporting is typical of voting surveys, including the CPS and ANES (Silver
et al., 1986; Leighley and Nagler, 1992; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993: 58-59). Past research has
found some links between overreporting, education, and race (Silver et al., 1986), but gives no
reason to think that there will be a systematic difference in overreporting between people with and
without disabilities, so that differential overreporting is unlikely to bias the comparisons made here.
People with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to vote by absentee
ballot, reflecting mobility limitations associated with many disabilities. The voting gap for the
Presidential election in 1996 (5.6%) is similar to that for 1998. People with disabilities are more
likely to report that they last voted more than 10 years ago, or that they do not know when or if they
ever voted.
People with disabilities were also somewhat less likely to be registered to vote in 1998, but
the gap (2.6%) is not large enough to reject sampling difference as an explanation of the difference.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly called the "Motor Voter Bill," was
designed to increase registration by requiring registration services at drivers' license agencies and a
10
The initial estimate is that 72.5 million people voted in November, 1998, which is 38.9% of the 186.9
million citizens age 18 or over (http://tap.epn.org/csae/cgans4.html).
16
variety of government service agencies. About one-fourth of both the disability and non-disability
samples report registering to vote since the Act took effect on January 1, 1995. There is little
difference by disability status in the method of registration: the largest number (one-tenth of the
overall sample) were registered at driver's license agencies, while registration offices and
registration drives were the next most common method. Only about 1% of each sample reported
becoming registered at a disability agency or other public assistance agency since the beginning of
1995. This strongly suggests that many states and government agencies are not fully implementing
the provisions of NVRA. In fact, many believe that the benefits of the NVRA will not be obtained
until much more emphasis is placed on full compliance with all aspects of the bill (Knack, 1995).
As will be seen in the next section, the disability gaps in voter turnout and registration
become wider after accounting for demographic characteristics (comparing people with and without
disabilities who are otherwise similar in age, education, and other factors).
b) Problems in Voting
To gauge problems with accessibility of polling places and other difficulties with the
process of voting, respondents were asked whether they had encountered (if they had voted since
1988) or would expect (if they had not voted since 1988) any "difficulty in getting to the polling
place or in using the ballot or voting machine."¹¹ As can be seen in Table 4, people with
disabilities were more likely to report such difficulty: about one-twelfth (8.2%) of those voting
since 1988 said they had experienced such difficulty, and over one-fourth (27.5%) of those not
voting since 1988 said they would expect difficulty, compared to 1.7% and 3.6% (respectively)
among people without disabilities.
11
This question was borrowed from the 1986 Harris poll commissioned by the National Organization on
Disability.
17
Those encountering or expecting difficulty in voting were asked an open-ended question
concerning the type of difficulty, and the answers were coded into four main categories and ten
subcategories. The most common category of difficulty among people with disabilities who had
voted since 1988 includes problems inside the polling place, experienced by 2.9% of all voters
with disabilities-particularly difficulty seeing the ballot. A smaller number (1.7% of all voters)
reported difficulty with general mobility (standing or walking), while a similar number (1.6%)
reported specific difficulty in getting to the polling place (finding the polling place, too great a
distance, or not having necessary transportation). About 1% of all voters with disabilities
reported difficulty getting into the polling place, due to stairs or steps.
Expected difficulties among non-voters were fairly evenly split among problems with
general mobility (10.3% of all non-voters), getting to the polling place (8.8%), and difficulties
once inside the polling place (9.7%). The largest single reason was difficulty with transportation
(7.8%), followed by walking (5.2%) or standing (5.1%), and understanding how to vote (4.5%).
These actual or expected problems with voting at a polling place may significantly
discourage voting among many people with disabilities. While it is clearly possible to vote by
absentee ballot, this may not have the same psychological value as a public display of voting
with fellow citizens. Apart from the practical aspects of any difficulties of voting at a polling
place, the simple existence of difficulties in voting may be taken by many people as a sign that
they are not fully welcome to participate in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The
practical and psychological barriers stemming from difficulties in voting at a polling place will
be further discussed in the final section.
c) Other Forms of Participation
Are people with disabilities more or less likely to engage in political and civic
18
participation other from voting? The survey asked all respondents about seven kinds of
participation in the past 12 months, with results summarized in Table 5.¹² Overall, people with
disabilities participated in fewer of these activities than did people without disabilities: about
half (51.3%) did any activity and their average number of activities was 1.15, while about three-
fifth (61.0%) of people without disabilities did any activity and their average number of activities
was 1.47.
People with disabilities were particularly less likely to have written or spoken to an
elected representative or public official (less than one-third, or 30.3%, have done so compared to
almost 40% of people without disabilities), but were almost as likely to have attended a political
meeting or written a letter to a newspaper. Each of these activities is related to demographic
characteristics, particularly age and education-the next section reports on differences by
disability status after accounting for demographic characteristics.
Those in the disability sample were also asked two questions about disability-related
action in the past twelve months. Just under one-tenth (8.4%) of those with disabilities said that
they had been involved in one of the political activities concerning a disability issue, while one-
tenth (10.1%) said that they had worked to change a private organization's practices or policies
regarding people with disabilities (such as by talking to business owners, or filing lawsuits).
Combining these two forms of activity reveals that just under one-sixth (15.3%) had taken at
least one action on a disability issue in the past twelve months.
12
The results for participation in the first five activities among people with disabilities are very similar to
those found in the 1998 Harris/N.O.D. survey (Louis Harris and Associates, 1998: 92).
19
VI. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PARTICIPATION
Are the lower participation rates described in the previous section due to characteristics
other than disability, such as age and education? Are there demographic groups within the
disability population that have particularly low participation? This section examines the role of
demographic characteristics, first looking at how the overall gaps in participation are affected
when controlling for differences in demographic characteristics, and then seeing how
demographic characteristics may interact with disability in producing larger or smaller gaps for
particular groups.
Table 6 compares voter turnout and other forms of participation among demographic
groups. The first important finding is that the participation gap widens with age: among the
younger age groups there is only a small gap between people with and without disabilities in
voter turnout and other forms of participation, but among the older age groups there is a much
larger gap. The voting gap is only 4.8% in the 18-29 age group, but 29.6% among those age 65
or older, and almost 43% among those age 80 or older (column 5). This pattern is consistent
with past research using the CPS (Shields, Schriner, and Schriner, 1998a).
The disability voting gap is also widest among females and those who are widowed-
possibly reflecting their greater likelihood of being age 65 or older-while the gap in other forms
of participation is widest among men and those who are separated or divorced. Both types of
gaps are largest among African-Americans, while the disability voting gap is concentrated
among non-Hispanics.
The education results produce an intriguing finding: lower voter turnout of people with
disabilities only appears among those with 8th grade or less education, while gaps in other forms
of participation appear both among this group and among those with a graduate degree.
20
Educational attainment is strongly linked to age (with lower rates of college attendance among
those who are older), so the relationship of voting to education and disability is should be
analyzed after controlling for age and other demographic characteristics, as done in the next
section.
a) Prediction of voting with demographic characteristics
The simple differences presented in Table 6 could be accounted for by other factors, and
are best evaluated when the effects of those other factors are held constant. Tables 7 and 8
present the results of regressions that predict voting and other forms of participation, allowing
one to analyze the independent effect of each characteristic while holding constant the remaining
characteristics. Table 7 uses probit regressions to predict the likelihood of voting, first for the
disability and non-disability samples separately, and then for the full sample with disability
variables to estimate the differences associated with disability. The reported figures are the
estimated effects of a one-unit change in a variable (e.g., change from male to female, or increase
in age by one year) on the probability of voting, which can be multiplied by 100 to obtain the
effect in terms of percentage points. 13 Table 8 likewise uses probit regressions on the full sample
to predict the likelihood of engaging in any other form of participation, and then uses standard
(ordinary least squares) regressions to predict the number of other forms of participation. While
people with disabilities were oversampled for this study, all of the regressions with the full
sample are weighted to reflect the general population (so that the coefficients should reflect the
effects of variables in a fully representative sample).¹⁴
13
The figures reported in Tables 7 and 8 are derivatives (dF/dX) based upon probit coefficients, assuming
independent variables are at their mean values (or zero, for effect of a dummy variable).
14
On top of the weighting by sex, region, and household size done separately for the disability and non-
disability samples (described in the methodology section), the cases were weighted so that the disability sample
represents 12.4% of the adult citizen population. The regression procedure calculates standard errors based on the
unweighted number of observations, reflecting the probable distribution of values were the sample to be repeated.
21
Education and age are the strongest influences upon voting in both the disability and non-
disability samples. Among people with disabilities, those with a high school degree are 32
percentage points more likely to vote than those who never attended high school, while those
with a graduate degree are 43.5 percentage points more likely to do so. A similar pattern exists
in the non-disability sample, with lower coefficients reflecting less of a gap between those not
attending high school and all other groups. The strong effect of education is in line with past
research showing the importance of education as a resource that enables and encourages political
participation.
Age has a strong positive effect on voting in both samples, but the effect is much larger in
the non-disability sample where each year of age is associated with a 1.5 point increase in the
likelihood of voting, compared to only a 0.6 point increase among those with disabilities. The
positive effect of age is also in line with past research on the general population, where it may
represent either increased likelihood of voting as one gets older (possibly due to resource effects)
or differences between generations. In addition, these results reflect the simple comparisons in
Table 6 showing that the voting gap between people with and without disabilities grows with
age.
The overall voting gap between otherwise-similar people with and without disabilities is
19.7 points, as shown in column 3 where the samples are combined and demographic
characteristics have been held constant. The main reason this is bigger than the simple 6.1 point
gap is that people with disabilities are disproportionately older, and older people are generally
more likely to vote; the simple comparison is therefore muddied by the strong association
between age and disability, while the regression adjusts for this and finds a much larger gap
when comparing people of the same age. While the overall average voting gap is close to 20
22
points, the regression reported in column 4 interacts age and disability and confirms that the age
effect is significantly lower among people with disabilities, so that the gap is close to zero among
people in their 20's but grows rapidly with age. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which adjusts for
overreporting so that average turnout reflects the 38.9% figure based on ballots cast.
How many millions of Americans are represented by this voting gap? Combining the
19.7-point voting gap with this survey's disability prevalence indicates that if people with
disabilities voted at the same rate as those without disabilities, there would have been an
additional 4.6 million voters in November, 1998, which would have raised overall voter turnout
by 2.5 percentage points.¹⁵
Voter turnout is lower among people with disabilities across all educational categories, as
shown in column 5 which interacts disability with each education category. While this indicates
that the simple comparisons in Table 6 were misleading in showing lower turnout only among
the less-educated, it remains true that the voting gap is largest among those who have not
attended high school (42.2 points), but is also substantial among those who have some college
education (19 points), an AA degree (26 points), or a BA degree (19 points).
The estimated gap in voter registration rates is also increased when accounting for
demographic characteristics. In estimates using the variables in column 3 of Table 8 to predict
voter registration, people with disabilities are estimated to be 10.2 percentage points less likely to
have been registered to vote in 1998. 16 As with the voting gap, the registration gap increases
strongly with age.
Table 8 uses the variables in the last three regressions of Table 7 to predict any other
15
Of the estimated 186.9 million citizens in November, 1998 (http://tap.epn.org/ csae/cgans4.html), about
23.2 million had disabilities based on this survey's questions, so that the 19.7-point gap represents 4.6 million
citizens with disabilities, which in turn represents 2.5% of all eligible citizens.
16
These estimates are not reported in the tables but are available.
23
form of participation, and the number of other forms of participation. In line with the voting
results of Table 7, education and age have the strongest effects. Those who have high school
degrees are about 30 points more likely, and those who have graduate degrees are about 47 points
more likely, than those without high school education to engage in at least one of these other
forms of participation (column 1). Similarly, those with graduate degrees engage in an average
of 2.3 more forms of participation than those without high school education (column 4).
People with disabilities are 8.2 points less likely than those without disabilities to have
engaged in any form of participation (column 1), and have engaged in an .17 fewer forms of
participation on average (column 4). As with voting, however, the disability participation gap
widens with age: each year of age is associated with a 0.6 point increase in the likelihood of any
participation in the non-disability population, but no increase in the disability population
(column 2). The participation gap does not, however, show a clear pattern with respect to
education (columns 3 and 6), indicating that while education raises the likelihood and number of
these forms of participation, people with disabilities are less likely to engage in them at each
education level.
Which particular activities are people with disabilities less likely to engage in? While the
simple differences indicated that people with disabilities were less likely to engage in each of the
activities (as reported in the last section and Table 5), some of these differences can be attributed
to demographic characteristics apart from disability. When estimates are made separately for
each of the seven activities, the overall participation gap is statistically indistinguishable from
zero for three of the activities after accounting for demographic characteristics: having attended
a political meeting, written a letter to a newspaper, and otherwise worked with groups or on
one's own to change government laws or policies. People with disabilities are 5.5 points more
24
likely to have worked with others on a community problem, but 5.1 points less likely to have
contributed money to a political party or candidate, 9.3 points less likely to have written or
spoken to an elected representative or public official, and 4.8 points less likely to have
contributed money to organization trying to influence government policy or legislation. As with
voting, for these last three activities the gap between those with and without disabilities grows
with age, so that it is greater among older people with disabilities.
V.
DISABILITY CHARACTERISTICS AND PARTICIPATION
Are the voting and participation gaps greater among those with certain impairments or
activity limitations? Disability characteristics can provide insights into the types of problems
that decrease voter turnout and other types of participation among people with disabilities.
Table 9 presents simple comparisons of voting, registration, voting difficulties, and other
forms of participation by disability characteristics. As can be seen in column 2, voter turnout is
especially low among those who use wheelchairs, have difficulty learning, and have difficulty
with activities inside or outside the home. Those who have difficulty going outside the home
alone are also most likely to report actual difficulties encountered in voting (23.9%), followed by
those who need help with any daily activities (19.2%), who are blind (17.6%) and who have a
learning disability (17.1%). (There is overlap among these categories; in particular, many of
those having difficulty outside the home also need help with daily activities.) Finally, the
number of other forms of participation is lowest among those who are unable to walk ¼ mile,
who have difficulty going outside, and who have difficulty learning, remembering, or
concentrating.
The independent effects of these characteristics are explored in regressions in Table 10,
25
which include the non-disability sample so that the figures represent estimated differences from
someone in the general population without that characteristic. Controls for demographic
characteristics are included in all regressions. When only functional limitations and
demographic characteristics are used to predict voting, voter turnout is particularly depressed
among those with severe mobility restrictions (-34.5 percentage points for wheelchair users, -
19.8 points for those who use no mobility aid but cannot walk ¼ mile, and -17.2 points for those
using a cane, crutches, or walker), a severe vision impairment (-18.2 points), or difficulty
remembering or concentrating (-15.9 points). These effects are decreased but not driven to zero
when controlling for activity limitations-particularly difficulty in going outside home alone
which decreases turnout by about 30 points (column 2). The continuing negative effects from
wheelchair use and the inability to walk ¼ mile-on top of the negative effects from difficulty in
going outside one's home alone-indicate that particularly severe mobility problems discourage
voting.
Difficulty in going outside home alone is also a strong negative predictor of the
likelihood and number of other forms of participation (columns 4 and 6). As with voting, the
inability to walk ¼ mile, and having difficulty remembering or concentrating, also exert a strong
negative influence on participation. In estimates not reported here, these same patterns appear
when looking just at the three forms of participation in which people with disabilities lag
(contributing money to a campaign or candidate, contributing to an organization trying to
influence government policy or legislation, and writing or speaking to an elected representative
or public official).
Is there a difference in participation according to how long one has lived with a
disability? Recently-occurring disabilities may be more likely to depress participation, as people
26
spend time and energy trying to adjust to the new condition. The influence of time since
disability was assessed in two ways. First, a variable representing the number of years since a
disability occurred was entered as a predictor of participation (along with other demographic
variables) in regressions limited to the disability sample. This showed that more recent
disabilities have a more negative effect on voter turnout, but not on other forms of participation:
each year of living with a disability adds 0.35 points to the likelihood of voting (on top of the
general 0.55 point age effect for people with disabilities). Second, categories representing the age
at which one's disability began were entered (along with other demographic variables) into full-
sample regressions predicting participation separately for those age 65 or older, and those age 45
to 64.
The effects of the age at onset are as follows (with asterisks next to the estimates for which a zero
effect can be confidently rejected):
Voting (percentage point effect)
Number of other forms
Current age
Current age
Age when
65+
45-64
18-44
65+
45-64
18-44
disability began
0-17
-35*
-20
13
-.88*
.02
.04
17-44
-29*
-10
-6
-.12
.30
.06
45-64
-35*
-24*
-.53*
.11
65+
-50*
-.50*
These results support the idea that more recent onset of disability discourages voter turnout,
given that the turnout is most depressed (50 points lower) among those who had the disabling
condition begin when they were 65 or older, while the effect is about two-thirds that size (35
points lower) for those age 65 or older who had an onset of disability before age 18. Those with
recent disabilities were also least likely to vote in the 45-64 age group (24 points lower) and 18-
44 age group (6 points lower). There is no clear relation, however, between other forms of
27
political participation and the age at which the disability began.
In sum, the analysis of disability characteristics points to an especially strong effect of
independent mobility-being able to go outside home alone. This is consistent with the finding
that many people with disabilities encounter or expect mobility problems in voting at a polling
place (Table 3). Given that people are able to vote by absentee ballot, the ability to go outside
home alone is clearly not required for voter turnout, or for many other forms of participation. This
result therefore suggests that increased mobility is one of the factors that can raise the likelihood of
voting.
Mobility is not, however, the only factor lowering participation among people with
disabilities. Voter turnout and other participation are also low among people who have difficulty
remembering or concentrating. Some people with such difficulty can have problems
understanding how to vote, as reflected in Table 3's finding that 4.5% of those with disabilities
who haven't voted since 1988 would expect such problems (although 3.2% of the non-disability
sample also report that they expect such problems). People with severe vision impairments are
less likely to vote, although not to engage in other forms of participation, suggesting that the
vision impairments may add to mobility difficulties and/or require aid in reading the ballot which
makes the process of voting more troublesome (also reflected in voting difficulties listed in Table
3). Finally, those with recent disabilities appear less likely to vote (although not to engage in
other participation) than those with longer-term disabilities, indicating that there may be general
problems in adjusting to life with a disability that depress voter turnout (consistent with Stoker
and Jennings, 1995, who claim that major life transitions depress turnout).
28
VIII. MOBILIZATION
Recruitment by others is one of the important means by which people become politically
active. In an election year the political parties spend a large amount of resources on mobilization
efforts-trying to contact potential voters and convince them to vote for the party's candidates.
Other organizations also become involved in such efforts on behalf on candidates or issues.
Apart from efforts for specific candidates, a variety of organizations and individuals often talk to
potential voters about the importance of registering and voting, in both formal efforts and
informal conversations.
To measure the importance of such mobilization efforts, survey respondents were asked
three ANES questions concerning whether they had been contacted by parties or others about
supporting specific candidates in 1998, and whether someone had talked to them about
registering or getting out to vote. For those who reported that they were contacted, follow-up
questions were asked to determine who had contacted them. The results are summarized in
Table 11.
People with disabilities were less likely than people without disabilities to be contacted
during the 1998 election campaigns by either major political party: slightly less than one-third
(31.0%) were contacted, which is 6.4 points lower than for people without disabilities. This gap
widens to 9.0 points when holding constant demographic characteristics; unlike the voting gap, it
does not change much by age. Party contact appears to make a difference in voter turnout, given
that turnout in both the disability and non-disability samples is about 20 percentage points higher
among those contacted than among those not contacted. There continues to be a voting gap
between people with and without disabilities, however, whether people were contacted or not,
and controlling for party contact in voting regressions makes only a small difference in the
29
estimated gap, indicating that little of the disability voting gap is due to different levels of party
mobilization for people with and without disabilities.
About one-tenth of both samples were contacted by someone apart from the major parties
about supporting candidates, and someone spoke to one-fourth of respondents in both samples
about registering or getting out to vote. There were not significant differences between the
disability and non-disability samples in these measures (either before or after controlling for
demographic characteristics), and the disability voting gaps persist among the contacted and non-
contacted.
Apart from political parties, other organizations and friends were the most likely to speak
to respondents about supporting specific candidates (as shown in Table 11). Similarly, parties,
other organizations, and friends were also the most likely to talk to respondents about registering
or getting out to vote. The only significant differences by disability status are that people with
disabilities were less likely to be talked to by family members or co-workers-reflecting their
greater likelihood of living alone and lower likelihood of being employed.
In sum, while people with disabilities were less likely to be contacted by political parties
in the 1998 campaigns, they were as likely to be contacted by someone else about supporting
candidates and registering or getting out to vote, and mobilization appears to play little role in
explaining why people with disabilities were less likely to vote.
IX.
POLITICAL INTEREST, EFFICACY, COMPETENCIES, AND PARTICIPATION
Having an interest in politics, and a belief that one is able to understand and make a
difference by participating, are clearly basic elements in the decision to participate. This survey
measured such factors in a variety of ways.
30
First, political interest was measured with an ANES question concerning the extent to
which respondents follow what's going on in government and public affairs. Next, political
efficacy was measured using five items from the ANES. Political scientists distinguish between
two types of political efficacy: "internal" efficacy is the belief that one is well-qualified to
participate in politics, while "external" efficacy is the belief that the political system is
responsive to individuals like oneself. This survey uses two external efficacy and three internal
efficacy measures.¹⁷
Schneider and Ingram (1993a, 1993b, 1995) have theorized that participation in politics
is strongly affected by how the group of which one is a member is perceived by politicians and
public officials. The likelihood of participation may be enhanced when one is a member of a
group that is perceived by politicians to be powerful, and that is treated with respect, such as
senior citizens. Participation may be depressed, however, when one is a member of a group that
is not seen to have political power, and whose members are not treated with respect and dignity.
This survey sought to measure the perceived status of people with disabilities by asking all
respondents how much they agree or disagree with the statements "People with disabilities have
as much influence as other groups in government and public affairs," and "Government officials
treat people with disabilities with as much respect and dignity as they treat members of other
groups."
Finally, a set of questions was used to measure perceived competency in several skills that
are important in political and civic participation. This survey supplemented the internal efficacy
questions with five measures of specific competencies, including the abilities to: work with others,
17
The ANES has used three of these measures (the first three in Table 12) in every survey since 1948. The
other two measures were used experimentally in 1992, and are included here because they were strong predictors of
voting in that year.
31
speak in public, lead a group, compose an effective letter to an elected official, and communicate
ideas to others.¹⁸ These are likely to be especially important for forms of participation other than
voting, such as communicating with elected representatives and working with others on community
problems.
Table 12 contains the results from the questions on political efficacy and competencies. As
can be seen, over half the respondents said they follow what's going on in government and public
affairs "most of the time," which does not differ by disability status. People with disabilities,
however, are more likely to say that they follow government and public affairs "now and then" or
"hardly at all" (19.0%) compared to people without disabilities (13.9%). They also have lower
average levels of political efficacy according to the first three efficacy measures, being more likely
than people without disabilities to agree that "public officials don't care much about people like
me," "people like me don't have any say about what the government does," and "sometimes
politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's
going on." While people with disabilities continue to report lower average efficacy on these
measures after controlling for demographic characteristics, they are just as likely as people without
disabilities to agree that they are "well-qualified to participate in politics" and "better-informed
about politics and government than most people."¹⁹
People without disabilities have more positive views of the influence and treatment of
people with disabilities in government and public affairs. Just over two-thirds (69.0%) agree that
people with disabilities have as much influence as other groups, and three-fifths (59.2%) agree that
people with disabilities are treated with as much respect as other groups, while only 62.2% and
18
These were adapted from a previous survey done by the Rutgers Center for Public Interest Polling.
19
Each regression (not reported but available) uses the 5-point scale for the efficacy measure (questions D2a-
e in Appendix A) as the dependent variable, and controls for the demographic variables used in Table 7.
32
49.3% (respectively) of people with disabilities agree with these statements.
People with disabilities also rate themselves less highly on each of the five specific
competency measures than do people without disabilities. While two-thirds (67.7%) of people
without disabilities say they are better than most people at working with others, only half (49.8%)
of people with disabilities say so. Similarly, while half (52.4%) of people without disabilities say
they are better than most people in leading a group, only one-third (35.9%) of people with
disabilities say so. These competencies may be strongly related to demographic characteristics,
particularly to education that can increase speaking and writing skills. Estimates that take
demographic characteristics into account show that education is in fact a strong predictor of these
skills; once these characteristics are held constant, people with disabilities report lower average
scores only in ability to work with others and lead a group (possibly reflecting greater isolation).²⁰
How are these perceptions related to voting and other forms of participation, and can they
account for the participation gaps between people with and without disabilities? As shown in
column 6 of Table 12, people with disabilities continue to have lower voting rates no matter how
they answered most of these efficacy and competency questions. The voting gap is highest among
those who say they follow what's going on in government and public affairs most of the time, and
close to zero among those who do so only now and then or hardly at all, strongly suggesting that
the lower turnout is not due to less interest in politics. When the political efficacy measures are
used to predict voting, the estimated disability voting gap is lowered only slightly, suggesting that
lower turnout is not primarily due to lower feelings of political efficacy. Similarly, the disability
voting gap is changed little when accounting for perceptions of the influence and treatment of
20
Each regression (not reported but available) uses the 4-point scale for the competency measure (questions
D3a-e in Appendix A) as the dependent variable, and controls for the demographic variables used in Table 7.
33
people with disabilities, and the five competencies. It is noteworthy, however, that the disability
voting gap is small among those who say they are better than most people in composing an
effective letter to an elected official, and in communicating ideas to others. These skills appear to
help people with disabilities participate as much as those without disabilities, while there is a large
disability voting gap among those who report having fewer of these skills.
Lower levels in other forms of participation by people with disabilities also do not appear to
be explained by these efficacy and competency measures. As shown in column 9 of Table 12, the
number of other forms of participation in the last year is generally lower no matter how people
responded to these questions. As with the voting results, the gap is highest among those who
follow government and public affairs most of the time, again suggesting that lower participation is
due to barriers other than lack of interest.
X.
EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION
Employment can affect political and civic participation in a number of ways. One way is
that it provides income that can be an important resource for participation; research on the general
population typically finds that higher-income people are more likely to vote and engage in other
forms of participation (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1995). Employment can also
provide a wider range of day-to-day contacts, increasing the chance that one will be explicitly
recruited, or subject to implicit social pressure, to vote or engage in other forms of participation.
Finally, both income and a wider range of contacts can have psychological effects that encourage
participation, through increasing one's sense of citizenship and stake in mainstream society. The
survey asked several employment questions, using standard wording from the Current Population
Survey that serves as the main source of employment information for the general population.
34
Overall, just under one-third (31.9%) of people with disabilities and over two-thirds
(70.7%) of people without disabilities were employed in the week prior to the survey. Since the
low employment rate of people with disabilities partly reflects their greater likelihood of being over
age 65 and retired, Table 13 breaks out employment rates separately for those of working age (18-
64) and those age 65 or older. As can be seen, just under half (46.7%) of the working-age people
with disabilities were employed, compared to four-fifths (79.5%) of working-age people without
disabilities. These employment rates are very close to those found for working-age people with and
without disabilities in the Survey of Income and Program Participation.² Of those who were
employed, people with disabilities were more likely to work part-time, and slightly more likely to
be union members.
Employment appears to make a substantial difference in the likelihood of voting. As shown
in column 5 of Table 13, among people age 18 to 64 the voting rate is almost identical between
employed people with and without disabilities, while non-employed people with disabilities are
about 13 points less likely to vote than non-employed people without disabilities. Similarly, the
disability voting gap among those age 65 and older is concentrated among those who are not
employed (32.5 points, compared to a gap of 11.6 points among the employed). Among those who
are employed, the disability voting gap does not vary substantially between the full-time and part-
time workers, or between union and non-union workers. These patterns are maintained when
estimates are made holding demographic characteristics constant: voter turnout is similar among
employed people with and without disabilities, but is 29.3 percentage points lower overall among
21
From the SIPP survey, an estimated 52.4% of working-age people with disabilities had a job in the
previous month, compared to 82.1% of people without disabilities. As noted earlier, the SIPP asked more disability
questions and had a higher incidence of disability; in addition, it measured employment as any job within the
previous month rather than the week-based CPS measure used here (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
disable/sipp/disab9495/asc9495.html)
35
non-employed people with disabilities compared to non-employed people without disabilities.
The results are similar for other forms of participation: employed people with disabilities
engage in a slightly higher average number of political activities than do employed people without
disabilities. In contrast, non-employed people with disabilities engage in fewer types of
participation than do non-employed people without disabilities, particularly if they are age 65 or
older.
These results raise the twin questions of why employment appears to have such a strong
positive effect on participation for people with disabilities, and why there is such a participation gap
among people who are not employed. Is it income, mobility, social contact, something else, or a
combination of factors that is responsible for these patterns? The following sections on
transportation, group involvement, and income can shed light on these possible explanations.
XI.
TRANSPORTATION AND PARTICIPATION
Convenient and reliable transportation is important for many kinds of political and civic
participation. It is clearly necessary when such participation requires attending meetings outside of
one's neighborhood. Many forms of participation can take place within one's home, such as voting
by absentee ballot, writing or calling elected representatives, and making financial contributions to
campaigns or organizations. Transportation may nonetheless play an indirect role in encouraging
these activities-voting at a polling place and having face-to-face contact with elected
representatives and colleagues may enhance the value of political action. In addition, convenient
and reliable transportation increases general mobility, which will affect recruitment opportunities
and a sense of connection with mainstream society.
To explore the importance of transportation, the survey asked several questions to
36
determine respondents' general mobility, usual transportation modes, ability to drive, and frequency
of transportation difficulties.
People with disabilities make fewer trips for work, shopping, or any other reason in a
typical week. As shown in Table 14 (columns 1-2), the average numbers of days they take such
trips is 3.34, compared to 5.18 for people without disabilities; in addition, only two-fifths (40.9%)
of people with disabilities take such trips on five or more days a week, compared to three-fourths
(75.9%) of people without disabilities. These differences partly reflect employment patterns:
among employed people the percentage taking trips on five or more days is very similar between
people with and without disabilities (about 85%), while among non-employed people the
percentage is much lower among people with disabilities (about 20% compared to 50% among
people without disabilities, both for those age 18-64 and for those age 65 or older).
While the large majority of people with disabilities use their own or a family vehicle for
transportation needs, they are less likely to do so than are people without disabilities. About one-
fifth use some other means of transportation, such as someone else's vehicle or public
transportation. They are also less likely to have a vehicle they can drive: just over two-thirds
(68.1%) can drive their own vehicle, compared to almost all (93.0%) of people without disabilities.
Non-employed people with disabilities are much less likely than those who are employed to be
able to drive their own vehicles, while this figure is about equal between employed and non-
employed people without disabilities. Somewhat surprisingly, people with disabilities are no more
likely than those without disabilities to report transportation difficulties: close to two-thirds of both
samples say that they never or rarely face delays or other problems in transportation.
Transportation is clearly related to levels of political and civic participation. As shown in
column 5 of Table 14, the disability voting gap is concentrated among those who travel less than
37
five days in the average week, and close to zero among those who travel five days or more. When
broken out by employment status, the disability voting gap is close to zero among those who are
employed (no matter how many days they travel in an average week), but continues to exist among
the non-employed whether they travel fewer than five, or five or more, days in an average week. It
is noteworthy, however, that the gap is about 10 points smaller among those who travel five or
more days per week, indicating that lower turnout is concentrated among non-employed people
with disabilities who travel fewer than five days per week.
Further evidence that transportation is an important factor for people with disabilities is
provided by the finding that the disability voting gap is narrowest among those who use their own
or a family vehicle as the usual mode of transportation. In addition, the voting gap is close to zero
among those who do not have a vehicle they can drive-the low voting rate among this group
indicates that this condition appears to discourage voter turnout in general, and contributes to the
lower overall turnout of people with disabilities given that they are much more likely than people
without disabilities to be in this group. Simply having a vehicle one can drive does not close the
voting gap, as indicated by the finding that voter turnout remains lower among non-employed
people with disabilities who can drive their own vehicle (9.0 percentage points lower in the 18-64
age category, and 19.6 points lower in the age 65 or older category). The disability voting gap is
smallest among those who say they never or rarely encounter transportation problems; after
accounting for demographic characteristics, however, the turnout of people with disabilities is
below that of people without disabilities across all levels of transportation problems.²²
Other forms of political and civic participation are, not surprisingly, lowest among those
22
Predictions of voting were done with demographic characteristics and dummy variables for each travel
difficulty category, plus the interactions of these dummies with disability. The estimated disability voting gap was
largest among those who "occasionally" have problems (30 points), but also large and significant among those who
say they never or rarely face problems (18 points).
38
who take trips in no more than two days in an average week (column 8 of Table 14). The gap is
especially large for non-employed people with disabilities who are age 65 or older and take trips for
no more than four days in an average week. The gap remains large even among those age 65 or
older who have a vehicle they can drive, suggesting that lack of independent transportation is not
the key barrier limiting participation in this group.
In sum, transportation is clearly affects political and civic participation. Voter turnout and
other forms of participation are higher among those who are more mobile (taking more trips during
the week) and who have a vehicle they can drive. People with disabilities are less likely to take as
many trips or have vehicles they can drive, which partly accounts for their lower levels of
participation. This is not a full explanation, however, given that non-employed people with
disabilities-particularly those age 65 or over-are less likely to participate even if they have a
vehicle they can drive and take trips as often as people without disabilities.
XII.
GROUP INVOLVEMENT, RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE, AND PARTICIPATION
Political and civic participation often takes place through involvement in groups and
organizations explicitly focused on political or civic projects. Even groups and organizations that
are not explicitly focused on political or civic projects can provide social contacts and exposure to
issues that increase members' political and civic participation. Involvement with religious
institutions in particular has been linked to higher voter turnout in the general population (e.g.,
Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993).
To assess the role that group involvement plays in political and civic participation, the
survey asked several questions about the groups that respondents meet with regularly, how often
39
such meetings take place, and whether and how often respondents attend religious services.²³
People with disabilities are less likely to meet regularly with any groups or organizations:
only two-fifths (41.3%) do so compared to over half (54.6%) of people without disabilities, as
shown in Table 15. The percentage who attend such a meeting an average of once a month is
similar between people with and without disabilities, but people with disabilities are less likely to
average two or more meetings a month with groups or organizations. In addition, only three-fifths
of people with disabilities (59.0%) ever attend religious services, compared to over two-thirds
(70.0%) of people without disabilities. It is noteworthy, however, that among those who do not
attend religious services, people with disabilities are much more likely to say that they think of
themselves as part of a church or denomination, suggesting that mobility problems or other barriers
keep them from attending. In fact, the samples are similar in the portion of respondents who say
that they never attend services and do not think of themselves as part of a church or denomination
(about one-sixth of each sample).
How are group involvement and religious attendance related to political and civic
participation? Those who regularly meet with any groups or organizations are much more likely to
vote and engage in other forms of participation, so that part of the lower overall participation of
people with disabilities is linked to their lower levels group involvement. The disability voting gap
is smaller among those who regularly meet with any groups or organizations, and who attend
religious services every week or almost every week, indicating that such activity may help to close
the voting gap.24 The gap continues to exist, however, whether people do or do not attend such
23
The questions on religion were taken from the ANES, while the questions on group involvement were
created for this survey but based on the questions asked in the study by Verba et al. (1995).
24
This is based on probit regressions predicting voting with demographic variables, group and religion
variables, and group and religion variables interacted with disability.
40
meetings, or do or do not attend religious services. Similarly, people with disabilities who are
active in groups and/or attend religious services have average participation levels that are closer to
(but still lower than) those of people without disabilities.
In sum, those who are involved in groups or organizations, and those who attend religious
services, are more likely to vote and engage in other forms of political and civic participation.
While people with disabilities are less likely to be involved in groups or attend religious services,
this difference accounts for little of the political and civic participation gaps between people with
and without disabilities.
XIII. INCOME AND PARTICIPATION
Income can have a direct effect on political and civic participation, most obviously through
the ability to make financial contributions to campaigns, causes, or projects. While the process of
earning an income may absorb much of one's time and leave little time for political and civic work,
high income levels can provide the resources and free time for household members to become
involved in such work. In addition, high income may be associated with both an increased
economic stake in governmental policies and psychological stake in mainstream society, leading to
a greater likelihood of voting, contact with representatives, and other forms of participation. Past
research has consistently found a positive link between income and political participation.
To assess the role of income, the survey asked respondents to indicate the category in which
their total household income falls, using categories from the monthly CPS.
People with disabilities are more likely to live in low-income households. As shown in
Table 12, over two-fifths (43.7%) reporting household incomes less than $25,000 per year, which is
about three times the rate for people without disabilities (14.8%). Correspondingly, only one-sixth
41
(16.4%) of people with disabilities report household incomes of $50,000 per year or more,
compared to over two-fifths (42.6%) of people without disabilities. 25 The patterns are very
consistent with data from SIPP showing that the mean household income of people with disabilities
is only three-fourths that of people without disabilities, and their poverty rate is twice as high
(Kruse, 1997).
Consistent with past research, there is greater voter turnout among high-income households.
People with disabilities who live in households with more than $25,000 in income appear to vote at
the same rate as people without disabilities, but there is a disability voting gap among the low-
income households and those not revealing household income. The same pattern holds for number
of other forms of participation.
Earnings of the respondent obviously increase total household income, and it may be that
the disappearance of the disability voting gap among high-income households reflects the
disappearance of the voting gap among employed people found earlier. Table 16 therefore breaks
out income levels and participation rates for the employed, and for those who are not employed
above and below the age of 65. When this is done, there is little difference in voter turnout by
income status between employed people with and without disabilities. Among non-employed
people under age 65 there is lower voter turnout among people with disabilities in low-income
households, while among non-employed people age 65 or older there is lower voter turnout across
each of the income categories. These same patterns generally hold for other forms of participation
as well, with especially lower levels of participation among those who are in low-income
households or who did not reveal household income.
25
Each of these percentages is slightly higher in actuality, since they do not include those who said they don't
know or refused to give household income data.
42
When used in combination with demographic variables to predict voting, income is a strong
positive predictor for people with disabilities, for whom an additional $10,000 in household income
raises predicted voter turnout by 1.6 percentage points.²⁶ This effect is stronger than for people
without disabilities, for whom an additional $10,000 in income raises predicted voter turnout by
only 0.5 percentage points (and a true effect of zero cannot be confidently ruled out). The strong
effect of income for people with disabilities reflects the particularly low voter turnout of people
with disabilities who have low household income levels, while high-income people with disabilities
voted at close to the same rate as high-income people without disabilities.
Income is also an important factor in the three other forms of participation in which people
with disabilities are less likely to engage. It is a factor not only in the decision to contribute to a
candidate or to an organization trying to influence government policy or legislation, but also in
whether one contacted an elected representative in the past twelve months. As with voting,
controlling for household income levels makes only a small difference in the overall participation
gaps for these activities, but the gaps are found to be concentrated among those who have low
incomes or did not report their incomes.
In sum, these results accord with past studies by finding a positive influence of income on
political participation. The lower average income levels of people with disabilities, however, can
account for only small portions of the overall gaps between people with and without disabilities in
several areas of participation, so that income differences are not the main factor in explaining these
gaps. The participation gaps are found to be widest among those who have low household incomes
(less than $25,000/year) or do not report household income, indicating that these people may face
26
To create a continuous income variable, the average dollar values for those in each income category were
calculated using data from the March 1998 CPS. Those who declined to provide any income data were identified
by a separate dummy variable.
43
special problems or barriers to participation.
XIV. ANALYZING THE PARTICIPATION GAPS
Are people with disabilities more or less likely to engage in voting and other forms of
participation once all of the factors discussed in previous sections are taken into account? A
variety of these characteristics have been shown to be associated with voting and other forms of
participation, as well as with disability, and they may combine to explain the basic differences in
participation linked to disability. For example, lower income levels, lower average political
efficacy, lower likelihood of mobilization, and limited mobility of people with disabilities may
work together to account for their lower likelihood of voting.
The combined influence of these factors is explored in regressions predicting voting in
1998, for which results are presented in Table 17. Column 1 reproduces the result from Table 7
that the probability of voting among people with disabilities is 19.7 points lower among people
with disabilities after accounting for demographic characteristics. The gap drops, but only to a 14.6
point difference, in column 2 after additionally accounting for the general effects of political
efficacy, mobilization, transportation, employment, social activities, and income levels.²⁷ Among
these measures, three are clearly important in predicting voter turnout: one external political
efficacy measure (disagreement with the statement that "public officials don't care much about
people like me"), one mobilization measure (having been contacted by someone in one of the major
political parties in the 1998 campaign), and one transportation measure (having a vehicle one can
drive).
27
Income is measured as broad categorical variables; continuous measures of household income were also
tried with little difference in the results.
44
Only about one-fourth of the disability voting gap is therefore explained by the lower scores
of people with disabilities on most of these characteristics. To further explore the voting gap,
columns 3 and 4 present the results when disability is broken into six categories. Column 3 shows
that after accounting for demographic characteristics, turnout is most depressed among people who
have difficulty going outside alone (-32.2 percentage points), and next most depressed among those
who cannot walk ¼ mile and do not use mobility devices (-15.8 points) and those with a severe
vision impairment (-15.0 points). One might expect that the lower turnout of those with difficulty
going outside would be explained by their fewer days of traveling per week, or their lower
likelihood of having a vehicle they can drive. When the full set of explanatory variables is used in
column 4, however, the gap for those with such difficulty closes only to 28.6 points. The gaps
associated with the other five disability categories also close slightly, but not sufficiently to indicate
that differential levels of efficacy, mobilization, transportation, employment, social activities, and
income can explain the lower turnout for any of the categories.
The strong negative effect of difficulty in going outside alone is explored by interacting it
with several measures in column 5. These results show that the relationship of such difficulty to
voting is linked to participation in several other activities. Those with difficulty going outside
alone have lower turnout if they: do not meet regularly with any groups or organizations, or do not
have a vehicle they can drive, or take trips less than five days a week. Turnout is even lower if they
meet more than one of these conditions, and lowest if they meet all three.²⁸ Those who meet these
conditions probably have particular difficulties with mobility. The importance of mobility is
reinforced by the negative effects of being unable to walk one-fourth mile, or having difficulty in
doing so. Those with mobility problems often have problems in voting at polling places, as
28
This is confirmed by the use of additional interactions.
45
confirmed by the higher level of actual or expected difficulties among those who have difficulty
going outside alone: over one-third (35.5%) have recently encountered or would expect difficulties
in voting at a polling place, which is more than five times the rate for people with disabilities who
have no trouble in going outside alone (6.4%).
Mobility problems therefore appear to play a strong role in the lower turnout of people with
disabilities. While everyone is able to vote by absentee ballot, lower mobility somehow
discourages voting in any format. This may reflect a lower value put on absentee voting, which is
an isolated activity that does not have the symbolic and demonstrative value of voting at a polling
place with fellow citizens. Turnout also appears to be lower among people with severe vision
impairments and mental impairments (difficulty remembering or concentrating), even after
controlling for the full set of characteristics. As with those who have difficulty going outside
alone, people with these impairments are more likely to have encountered or to expect difficulties
in voting at a polling place: over one-fourth of people with severe vision impairments (27.6%), and
over one-fifth of people with mental impairments (22.0%), have encountered or expect difficulties
in voting at a polling place, compared to less than one-tenth (8.5%) of those who have neither type
of impairment. Therefore the low voting rates among those with mental or severe vision
impairments may partly reflect difficulties with voting at a polling place combined with a lower
value put on absentee voting.
What role do the variety of characteristics considered here play in explaining the lower
likelihood that people with disabilities engage in other forms of political and civic participation?
As noted in Section VI, after accounting for demographic characteristics, people with disabilities
were 8.2 percentage points less likely to have engaged in any of seven other forms of participation,
and engaged in an average .173 fewer activities over the past twelve months. When looked at
46
separately, however, lower participation occurred in only three of the activities: people with
disabilities were 5.3 points less likely to have contributed to a campaign or candidate, 4.8 points
less likely to have contributed to an organization trying to influence government laws or policies,
and 9.4 points less likely to have written or spoken to an elected representative or public official.
Unlike the voting gap, the gaps in other forms of participation almost fully disappear after
accounting for the political efficacy, transportation, employment, social activity, and income
measures used in Table 17. Further analysis shows that the gaps are primarily due to lower levels
of income, less travel throughout the week, lower likelihood of having a vehicle one can drive, and
lower perceptions of political efficacy. These measures are highly correlated with each other-
people with lower incomes tend to have less travel, lower likelihood of driving, and lower
perceptions of political efficacy-making it difficult to cleanly sort out which specific measures
account for the disability gaps.
XV. IMPLICATIONS
The above results show that voter turnout is lower on average among people with
disabilities-particularly those who are older and non-employed-than among people without
disabilities who have the same demographic characteristics. People with disabilities are as likely as
those without disabilities to participate in several other forms of political and civic activities, but are
less likely to engage in three activities (contributing to a campaign, contributing to a political
organization, and contacting an elected representative).
The analysis revealed that lower participation in these latter three activities is linked to
lower incomes, decreased mobility, and weaker feelings of political efficacy among some people
with disabilities. The lower voter turnout of people with disabilities, however, is only partly
47
explained by these and other standard predictors of voter turnout. After controlling for many
factors, voter turnout is found to be still much lower than expected among those who have
difficulty going outside alone, and is also lower than expected among those with severe vision
impairments, mental impairments, and difficulty walking one-fourth of a mile. It is particularly low
among those who, along with difficulty going outside alone, have little mobility or social
interaction (no regular meetings with groups or organizations, no vehicle one can drive, and trips on
fewer than five days in an average week). The groups for which turnout is especially low have high
levels of actual or expected problems in voting at a polling place.
These results indicate that actual or expected difficulties in voting at a polling place may be
a culprit in the low turnout of many people with disabilities. While absentee ballots are easily
available, those who feel forced to use them because of inaccessible polling places may not put as
much value on voting as do those who can go to a polling place without difficulty. People may
value the demonstrative aspects of publicly congregating with fellow citizens at a polling place,
which can reinforce the social nature and value of democratic participation. Also, most elections
have a declared winner before the absentee ballots are counted, so that those who feel forced to vote
by absentee ballot may be especially likely to feel that their votes do not matter.
Difficulties in voting at a polling place may, however, be only one factor that represents and
contributes to a more basic problem. To explain why people engage in community-oriented
activities in which there is little individual self-interest to do so (like voting, given that the chance
of one vote deciding an election is almost always negligible), social scientists have recently
developed the concept of "social capital" which is the "web of cooperative relationships between
citizens that facilitates resolution of collective action problems" (Brehm and Rahn, 1997: 999).
Social capital is likely to be lower among those who have difficulty going outside and interacting
48
with the larger community, because they have fewer opportunities to build and maintain
relationships that engender a sense of identification and cooperation with fellow citizens. The
depreciation of social capital can lead to a self-perpetuating spiral in which individuals become
more and more detached from the community and less likely to engage in political and civic
activities. This kind of isolation may result not just from physical difficulties in going outside, but
from stigma and discrimination that leads one to avoid social contact. In this interpretation, low
levels of social capital may be an underlying reason for low levels of turnout and participation in
several political activities among some segments of the disability population.
An overarching goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to integrate people with
disabilities more fully into mainstream life, by combatting stigma and discrimination and
increasing the accessibility of many areas of public life. As such, the ADA may play an important
role in developing the social capital of people with disabilities. Just as the ADA can have economic
benefits by promoting the full use of our country's human resources, it can have important social
and civic benefits by developing social capital that leads people with disabilities to share their skills
and experiences in addressing community problems. The role of employment in developing social
capital may help explain the positive effect that employment has on voting among people with
disabilities, giving further weight to the ADA's goal of increasing employment among people with
disabilities.
Since voting is the most basic act of citizenship in a democracy, difficulty in voting at a
polling place may contribute to a sense of being a second-class citizen, which can weaken
connections to one's fellow citizens and decrease social capital among people with disabilities.
Many of the difficulties faced in voting can be lessened or eliminated through efforts to ensure the
full accessibility of polling places. Following are several policies to increase accessibility of
49
political elections that deserve careful consideration:
federal standards establishing national standards for polling place accessibility for all people
with disabilities,
technical assistance to state and local election officials to promote accessibility,
an information campaign for government service agencies to promote better implementation
of the "Motor Voter Act," and
federal standards to ensure that all campaign activities (speeches, commercials, etc.) are
accessible to people with various impairments.
Many people with disabilities see themselves as second-class citizens, as indicated by our
finding that a substantial number feel that public officials treat them with less respect and dignity
than other groups receive. Aggressive efforts to incorporate people with disabilities into political
and civic activities, including but not limited to the policies listed above, can fight these perceptions
and help ensure that this country fully benefits from the ideas, skills, and active citizenship of the
54 million Americans with disabilities.
50
REFERENCES
Anspach, Renee (1979). "From stigma to identity politics: political activism among the physically
disabled and former mental patients," Social Science and Medicine 13A: 765-773.
Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn (1997). "Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and
Consequences of Social Capital," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp.
999-1024.
Cassel, Carol A., and David B. Hill (1981). "Explanations of turnout decline: a multivariate test,"
American Politics Quarterly 9: 181-195.
Conway, M. Margaret (1991). Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly.
Gelman, Andrew, and Thomas C. Little (1998). "Improving on Probability Weighting for
Household Size," Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, pp. 398-404.
Hahn, Harlan (1985). "Toward a politics of disability: definitions, disciplines, and policies," The
Social Science Journal 22: 87-105.
(1987). "Civil rights for disabled Americans: The foundation of a political agenda." In Alan
Gartner and Tom Joe (eds.), Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images. New York:
Praeger Publishers.
International Center for the Disabled (1986). The ICD Survey of Disabled Americans: Bringing
Disabled Americans into the Mainstream. New York: International Center for the
Disabled.
Johnson, William G., and Marjorie Baldwin (1993). "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Will it
make a difference?" Policy Studies Journal 21(4): 775-788.
Kruse, Douglas; Alan Krueger; and Susan Drastal (1995). Disability, employment, and earnings in
the dawn of the computer age, Report to the Rutgers Disability Research Consortium.
School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University.
Kruse, Douglas (1997). Employment and Disability: Characteristics of Employed and Non-
employed People with Disabilities, Report to the U.S. Department of Labor. School of
Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University.
Knack, Stephen (1995). "Does 'motor voter' work? Evidence from state-level data," Journal of
Politics, Vol. 57, August, pp. 796-811.
Leighley, Jan E., and Nagler, Jonathan (1992). "Individual and systemic influences on voter
turnout: who votes? 1984," Journal of Politics 54(3): 718-740.
51
LoBianca, Anthony F. (1998). "Are the Costs Too High? Political Participation Among Disabled
Americans." Draft, Department of Political Science, University of Kentucky
Louis Harris and Associates. 1998. 1998 N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities.
New York: Louis Harris and Associates.
McNeil, John M. (1993). Americans with Disabilities: 1991-92, Current Population Reports,
Household Economic Studies, P70-33. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Miller, Warren E., and J. Merrill Shanks (1996). The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Nardulli, Peter F.; Jon K. Dalager; and Donald E. Greco (1996). "Voter turnout in U.S. presidential
elections: an historical view and some speculation," PS: Political Science and Politics 29:
480-490.
Rosenstone, Steven, and John Hansen (1993). Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in
America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram (1993a). "Social Constructions and Target Populations:
Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, 87:334-47.
(1993b). "Constructing Citizenship: The Subtle Messages of Policy Design." In Helen
Ingram and Steven Rathgeb Smith, eds., Public Policy for Democracy. Washington:
Brookings Institution.
(1995). "Social Constructions and Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy
(Continued)," American Political Science Review, pp. 443-447.
Schur, Lisa (1997). Disability and Political Participation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Political Science, University of California-Berkeley.
(1998). "Disability and the Psychology of Political Participation," Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 9(2), December.
Schur, Lisa, and Douglas Kruse (1997). "What determines voter turnout? Lessons from citizens
with disabilities." Draft, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers
University.
Scotch, Richard (1988). "Disability as the basis for a social movement: advocacy and the politics
of definition," Journal of Social Issues, 44(1).
Shields, Todd; Kay Schriner; and Ken Schriner (1998a). "The disability voice in American
politics: Political participation of people with disabilities in the 1994 election." Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 9(2), pp. 33-52.
52
(1998b). "Influences on the political participation of people with disabilities: The role of
individual and elite factors in 1984 and 1986," Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 9(2),
pp. 77-91.
Shaffer, Stephen D. (1981). "A multivariate explanation of decreasing turnout in presidential
elections, 1960-1976," American Journal of Political Science, 25(1): 68-95.
Shapiro, Joseph (1993). No Pity: People With Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement.
New York: Random House, Inc.
Stoker, Laura, and M. Kent Jennings (1995). "Life-cycle transitions and political participation: the
case of marriage," American Political Science Review, 89(2): 421-433.
Stone, William, and Paul Schaffner (1988). The Psychology of Politics. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Teixera, Ruy (1987). Why Americans Don't Vote: Turnout Decline in the United States, 1960-
1984. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1983). Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities,
Clearinghouse Publication 81. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Verba, Sidney (1996). "The citizen as respondent: sample surveys and American democracy,"
American Political Science Review, 90, pp. 1-7.
; Kay Lehman Schlozman; and Henry E. Brady (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism
in American Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Voss, D. Stephen, Andrew Gelman, and Gary King (1995). "Preelection Survey Methodology:
Details from Eight Polling Organizations, 1988 and 1992," Public Opinion Quarterly, 59,
pp. 98-132.
Yuker, Harold E., ed. (1988). Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities. New York: Springer
Publishing.
53
APPENDIX A:
Survey Instrument (prior to CATI coding)
1
Questions for 1998 Disability/Election Participation
97-076
FINAL
REVISED 10/28/98
RESPONDENT ID:
SAMPLE STATE:
SAMPLE COUNTY:
AREA CODE:
DAY:
TIME INTERVIEW BEGAN:
TIME INTERVIEW ENDED:
LENGTH OF INTERVIEW:
RESPONDENT SEX: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
ADD "Don't Know" as 8, 88 or 888 and "Refused" as 9, 99 or 999 for all questions
Hello, my name is
(first and last name). I'm on the staff of the
Eagleton Poll at Rutgers University. We're conducting a study about people's health and
elections. The survey will only take about 15 minutes of your time.
A. Screening for disability
A-1. To begin, including yourself, how many people regularly live in this household?
/
/
/
A-2. How many of these people are age 18 or older?
/ / /
A-2a. Of those 18 or older, how many are citizens of the United States?
/
/
/
If A2a matches A2, then go to A3
If zero, thank and terminate
If >0 but <A2 say "For our study we're focusing on citizens, so for the following
questions I'd like to know just about those who are citizens."
2
A-3.
Of those 18 or older, does anyone have a long-term health problem or impairment that
limits the kind or amount of work, housework, or other activities he or she can do?
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Other activities can include major activities such as school,
parenting, or recreation
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
A-4. Does anyone age 18 or older have any of the following long-lasting conditions:
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Does not include impairment corrected by ordinary eyeglasses
or a hearing aid; "Long-lasting" = 6 months or more
Yes, more than
Don't
Yes
one (volun.)
No
Know Refused
A-4a. Blindness?
1
2
3
8
9
A-4b. Deafness?
1
2
3
8
9
A-4c. Severe vision impairment?
1
2
3
8
9
A-4d. Severe hearing impairment?
1
2
3
8
9
A-5.
Does anyone age 18 or older have a long-lasting condition that substantially limits one or
more basic activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
3
A-6. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does
anyone age 18 or older have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:
Don't
Yes
No
Know Refused
A-6a. Learning?
1
2
8
9
A-6b. Remembering or concentrating?
1
2
8
9
A-6c. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside
the home?
1
2
8
9
A-6d. Going outside the home alone to shop or visit
a doctor's office?
1
2
8
9
IF YES TO ANY QUESTION IN A-3 TO A-6, SKIP TO A-8
OTHERS ASK A-7
A-7. Is there anyone age 18 or older in your household, including yourself, who
a) Considers himself or herself a person with a disability?
1. Yes
Skip to question A-8
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
b) Most other people would consider a person with a disability?
1. Yes
Skip to question A-8
2. No
Skip to question C-1
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-1
9. Refused
Skip to question C-1
4
If one person in household AND A7a=1 or A7b=1 skip to B2
Otherwise, if one person in household skip to A-10
A-8. Is it just one person, or more than one person, who is age 18 or older and has one of the
impairments or conditions I just asked about?
/ / /
88. Don't know
99. Refused
.IF A8=1:
If A7a=1 or A7b=1 skip to B2
If A-5=1, skip to A-10,
Else skip to B-1
IF A8>1:
READ A-9sel
A-9sel.
[TEXT ONLY] For the following questions, I'd like to ask you about the situation
of just one person with the impairments or conditions I've mentioned - - the person
with the most recent birthday.
If A7a=1 or A7b=1 skip to B2
A-9.
Is it this person who [ASK EACH ALTERNATIVE THAT FOLLOWS ONLY
IF GAVE "YES" ANSWER IN A-3 TO A-6 THAT SOMEBODY IN
HOUSEHOLD HAS THIS CONDITION]:
Don't
Yes
No
Know Refused
A-9a. Is limited in the kind or amount of work,
housework, or other activities he or she can do?
1
2
8
9
A-9bi. Is blind?
1
2
8
9
A-9bii. Is deaf?
1
2
8
9
A-9biii. Has a severe vision impairment?
1
2
8
9
A-9biv. Has a severe hearing impairment?
1
2
8
9
A-9c. Is limited in walking, climbing stairs, reaching,
lifting, or carrying?
1
2
8
9
A-9di Has difficulty learning?
1
2
8
9
A-9dii Has difficulty remembering, or
concentrating?
1
2
8
9
A-9e Has difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting
around inside the home?
1
2
8
9
A-9f Has difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or visit
a doctor's office?
1
2
8
9
5
IF ["YES" TO A-9c] OR ["YES" IN QA-5 AND ONE PERSON IN HOUSEHOLD],
ASK A-10, OTHERS SKIP TO B-1
Don't
A-10.
Yes
No
Know Refused
A-10a. Does this person (Do you) have difficulty walking
1
2
8
9
a quarter of a mile--about three city blocks?
IF NO, DON'T KNOW OR REFUSED TO A-10a, SKIP TO A-10c
A-10b. Is this person (Are you) able to walk a quarter of a mile
1
2
8
9
at all?
A-10c. Does this person (Do you) use a wheelchair?
1
2
8
9
A-10d. Does this person (Do you) use a cane, crutches, or walker?
1
2
8
9
6
B. Disability questions once disability has been established ASK IF ANY TYPE OF
DISABILITY
Bla.B1. What medical condition or conditions cause this impairment or difficulty with
activities?
ASK B1b IF MORE THAN 1 MEDICAL CONDITION NAMED IN B1a:
B1b. Which of these conditions would you say is the MAIN cause of any difficulty with activities
this person has?
[PROBE FOR CLEAR ANSWERS-RECORD UP TO 4]
B1b-CIRCLE BELOW IF MAIN
1.
1
2.
2
3.
3
4.
4
8. Don't know
8
9. .Refused
9
ALL RESPONSES: SKIP TO B-3
ASK B-2 ONLY IF YES TO A-7a OR A-7b
B2a.
What medical condition or conditions cause this disability?
[PROBE FOR CLEAR ANSWERS-RECORD UP TO 4]
ASK B2b IF MORE THAN 1 MEDICAL CONDITION NAMED IN B2a:
B2b. Which of these conditions would you say is the MAIN cause of any difficulty with activities
this person has?
B2b-CIRCLE BELOW IF MAIN
1.
1
2.
2
3.
3
4.
4
8. Don't know
8
9. Refused 9
7
ASK EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A DISABILITY OR
HAVING SOMEONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD WITH A DISABILITY
B3. How old were you (was this person) when this medical condition began?
IF MORE THAN ONE CONDITION NAMED IN Bla OR B2a, ASK ABOUT
CONDITION IDENTIFIED AS "MAIN" CONDITION IN B1b OR B2b
/
/
/ Years old [IF NEEDED:" Your best estimate is fine"]
888. Don't know
999. Refused
B4. Because of this medical condition, does this person (do you) need the help of another person
with any daily activities either inside the home or getting around outside the home?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
ASK TO SPEAK TO PERSON WITH DISABILITY, AND CONSIDER THEM AS PART
OF "DISABILITY SAMPLE" IN FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
IF THE PERSON WITH THE DISABILITY IS NOT ABLE TO TALK ON THE
TELEPHONE USE THE PERSON YOU ARE TALKING WITH AS A PROXY AND ASK
THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW ABOUT THE PERSON WITH THE DISABILITY
ADD SECOND INTRO AND TRANSITION
C. Voting and mobilization
Now, I'd like to ask you some questions about elections.
C-1. In talking to people about elections, we often find that a lot of people were not able to vote
because they weren't registered, they were sick, or they just didn't have time. How about
you-did you vote in the elections on November 3rd?
1. Yes
2. No
Skip to question C-2.
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-2.
9. Refused
Skip to question C-2.
8
C-1a. Did you vote in person or by absentee ballot?
1. In person
Skip to question C3
2. By absentee ballot
8. Don't know
9. Refused
C-1b. Have you voted in person in any previous election?
1. Yes
2. No
Skip to question C-4.
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-4.
9. Refused
Skip to question C-4.
C-1c. What year was the last election in which you voted in person?
/
/
/
/
/
IF LATER THAN 1988- Skip to question C-3
IF 1988 OR EARLIER - Skip to question C-4
IF DON'T KNOW OR REFUSED - Skip to question C-4
ASK C-2 ONLY IF 2,8,OR 9 IN C-1..
C-2.
Have you voted in any previous national election?
1. Yes
2. No
Skip to question C-4
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-4
9. Refused
Skip to question C-4
C-2a. What year was the last election in which you voted?
/
/
/
/
/
IF LATER THAN 1988 - Ask question C-3
IF 1988 OR EARLIER - Skip to question C-4
IF DON'T KNOW OR REFUSED - Skip to question C-4
9
ASK IF VOTED IN-PERSON IN C-1a or VOTED SINCE 1988 IN C-2a
C-3. Did you experience any difficulty in getting to the polling place or in using the ballot or
voting machine?
1. Yes
Ask question C-3a
2. No
If voted this year 1998 (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
8. Don't know If voted this year 1998 (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
9. Refused
If voted this year 1998 (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
C-3a. What type of difficulty did you experience?
[coded verbatim]
All responses: If voted this year 1998 (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5
ASK ONLY IF 2,8, OR 9 IN C-2
C-4. If you wanted to vote in person inside the polling place, do you think you would
experience any difficulty in getting to the polling place or in using the ballot or voting
machine?
1. Yes
Ask question C-4a
2. No
If voted this year (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
8. Don't know If voted this year (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
9. Refused
If voted this year (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5.
C-4a. What type of difficulty do you think you would experience?
[coded verbatim]
All responses: If voted this year (yes to C1), skip to C-6, else skip to C-5
ASK IF DID NOT VOTE THIS YEAR
C-5. Were you registered to vote in this election?
1. Yes
Ask question C-6
2. No
Skip to question C-7
3. (Vol) Registration not required to vote Skip to question C-7
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-7
9. Refused
Skip to question C-7
10
C-6. Did you register to vote after January 1, 1995?
1. Yes
Ask C-6a
2. No
Skip to question C-7
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-7
9. Refused
Skip to question C-7
C6a. There are various ways people can register to vote. Did you register to vote
when you obtained or renewed your driver's license, or did you register in some
other way?
1. When driver's license was obtained/renewed Skip to question C-7.
2. Some other way Ask C-6b
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-7
9. Refused
Skip to question C-7
C6b. How did you register to vote?
DO NOT READ PRECODED OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
At an agency serving people with disabilities (for example, vocational
rehabilitation agency, Easter seals, community mental health center)
At some other public assistance agency (for example, Medicaid, AFDC,
Food Stamp, or Unemployment office)
Mailed in form to election office
At a school, hospital, or on campus
Went to a county or government voter registration office
Filled out form at a registration drive (for example, political rally, someone
came to your door, registration drive at mall, market, fair, post office,
library, store, church, etc.)
Other place/way
Registered at the polls on election day
88
Don't know
99 Refused
C-7. As you know, the political parties try to talk to as many people as they can to get
them to vote for their candidate. Did anyone from one of the political parties call you up
or come around and talk to you about the campaign this year?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
C-8a. Other than someone from the two major parties, did anyone (else) call you up or
come around and talk to you about supporting specific candidates in this election?
11
1. Yes
Ask C-8b
2. No
Go to C-9a
8. Don't know
Go to C-9a
9. Refused
Go to C-9a
C-8b. Who talked to you-friends, family members, co-workers, representatives from some
organizations, or someone else? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY..PROBE: Are there any others?
1. Friends
2. Family members
3. Co-workers
4. Representatives from political parties
5. Representatives from other organizations Ask question C-8c.
6. Someone else
Ask question C-8d.
8. Don't know
9. Refused
IF ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES--C-86 #5:
C-8c. What organizations did they represent?
IF SOMEONE ELSE-C-8b #6:
C-8d. Who was that?
C-9a. During the campaign this fall, did anyone talk to you about registering to vote or getting
out to vote?
1. Yes
2. No
Skip to question C-10
8. Don't know
Skip to question C-10
9. Refused
Skip to question C-10
12
C-9b. Who talked to you-friends, family members, co-workers, representatives from some
organizations, or someone else? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY PROBE: Are there any others?
1. Friends
2. Family members
3. Co-workers
4. Representatives from political parties
5. Representatives from other organizations Ask question C-9c.
6. Someone else
Ask question C-9d.
8. Don't know
9. Refused
IF ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES--C-96 #5:
C-9c. What organizations did they represent?
IF SOMEONE ELSE-C-9b #6:
C-9d. Who was that?
C-10.
In the Presidential election two years ago, a lot of people were not able to vote because
they weren't registered, they were sick, or they just didn't have time. How about you--
did you vote in the national elections two years ago, in 1996?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
13
D. Political efficacy
D-1. Some people seem to follow what's going on in government and public affairs most of the
time, whether there's an election going on or not. Others aren't that interested. Would you
say you follow what's going on in government and public affairs most of the time, some of
the time, only now and then, or hardly at all?
1. Most of the time
2. Some of the time
3. Only now and then
4. Hardly at all
9. Don't know
D-2. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with these statements.
Neither
Agree Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Don't
Strongly Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Strongly Know
The first is:
DO NOT ROTATE ITEMS
a. Public officials don't care much what people like
me think.
1
2
3
4
5
9
b. People like me don't have any say about what the
government does.
1
2
3
4
5
9
c. Sometimes politics and government seem so
complicated that a person like me can't really
understand what's going on.
1
2
3
4
5
9
d. I consider myself well-qualified to participate
in politics.
1
2
3
4
5
9
e. I think that I am better informed about politics
and government than most people.
1
2
3
4
5
9
f.. People with disabilities have as much influence as
1
2
3
4
5
9
other groups in government and public affairs.
g. Government officials treat people with disabilities
1
2
3
4
5
9
with as much respect and dignity as they treat
members of other groups.
14
D-3.
I'm going to read you a list of several skills and activities. Please rate yourself with
respect to how well you do on each of these as compared to most people. Compared to
most people are you not as good, about the same, better, or much better at the (READ
ITEM)?
Not As
About
Much
Don't
Good
The Same
Better
Better
Know
DO NOT ROTATE ITEMS
a. Ability to work with others
1
2
3
4
9
b. Ability to speak in public
1
2
3
4
9
c. Ability to lead a group
1
2
3
4
9
d. Ability to compose an effective letter to an
elected official
1
2
3
4
9
e. Communicating your ideas to others
1
2
3
4
9
E. Other forms of political/group participation
E-1.
In the last year, have you (READ EACH ITEM) or not?
Don't
Yes
No
Know
a. Contributed money to a political party or candidate
1
2
9
b. Written or spoken to an elected representative or public official 1
2
9
c. Attended a political meeting
1
2
9
d. Written a letter to a newspaper
1
2
9
e. Contributed money to an organization which is trying to
influence government policy or legislation
1
2
9
f. Otherwise worked with groups or on your own to change
government laws or policies
1
2
9
IF NON-DISABILITY SAMPLE SKIP TO E-3
IF IN DISABILITY SAMPLE, AND RESPONED "YES" TO ANY QUESTION IN E-1a
TO E-1f..ASK E-1g
E-1g. Was any of this work on disability issues?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
15
IF IN DISABILITY SAMPLE:
E-1h. (Have you) Worked to change a private organization's policies or practices
affecting people with disabilities, such as through talking to business owners, or filing
lawsuits?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
E-2. DELETED
E-3.
In the last twelve months, have you worked with others or joined an organization
in your community to do something about some community problem?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
E-4a. Do you regularly meet with other people in any groups or organizations-for
example, groups organized around service, hobbies, sports, social or political issues, or
other interests?
1. Yes
Ask question E-4b.
2. No
Skip to question F-1
8. Don't know
Skip to question F-1
9. Refused
Skip to question F-1
E-4b. What types of groups or organizations are these?
E-4c. How many times in an average month do you meet with these groups or
organizations?
/
/
/
16
IF IN DISABILITY SAMPLE, IF NOT GO TO F-1:
E-5a. Do you regularly participate in any disability groups or organizations?
1. Yes
2. No
Skip to question F-1
8. Don't know
Skip to question F-1
9. Refused
Skip to question F-1
IF YES:
E-5b. What organizations are these?
E-5c. What do you do in these organizations?
F. Transportation
F-1.
How many days in an average week do you commute to work or go on trips for
work, shopping, recreation, or any other reason?
/Days
F-2a. What do you use most often for basic transportation?
DO NOT READ PRE-CODED OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
1. Own car, van, or truck
Ask question F-2b.
2. Family's car, van, or truck
Ask question F-2b.
3. Someone else's car, van, or truck Ask question F-2b.
4. Public transportation Ask question F-2c
5. Para-transit
Ask question F-2c.
6. Other
Ask question F-2c
IF CAR, VAN, OR TRUCK IN F-2a ASK:
F-2b. Is that a vehicle that you can drive, or does someone else do all the driving?
1. You can drive
Go to question F-3.
2. Someone else does all the driving Go to question F-3.
6. Other
Go to question F-3.
IF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR OTHER #4 in F-2a ASK:
F-2c. Do you have a car, van, or truck that you can drive?
17
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
F-3. Sometimes people face delays or other problems in transportation. When you want to go
somewhere, how often do you face transportation delays or problems in getting there--
never, rarely, occasionally, often, very often, or always.
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Occasionally
4. Often
5. Very often
6. Always
9. Other
G. Employment
G-1. Last week, did you have a job in which you do work for pay or profit?
[Note: even if didn't actually work at the job last week]
1. Yes
Ask question G-2.
2. No
Skip to question H-1.
3. Don't know Skip to question H-1.
G-2. How many hours per week do you usually work at your job?
/ / / / RANGE 1-168
777 (Vol)Hours vary
888 Don't know
999 Refused
18
G-3. What kind of work do you do, that is, what is your occupation (for example, plumber,
typist, farmer)? [coded verbatim]
IF NECESSARY, PROBE WITH: What are your usual duties or activities at this
job? (For example, type, keep account books, file, sell cars, operate printing press, lay
brick)
/
/
/
/
G-4. On this job, are you a member of a labor union or of an employee association similar to a
union?
1. Yes
2. No
9. Don't know
H. Religion
H-1a. Lots of things come up that keep people from attending religious services even if they
want to. Thinking about your life these days, do you ever attend religious services, apart
from occasional weddings, baptisms or funerals?
1. Yes
Skip to question H-1c.
2. No
Ask question H-1b.
9. Don't know Ask question H-1b.
H-1b. Regardless of whether you now attend any religious services, do you ever think of
yourself as part of a particular church or denomination?
1. Yes
Skip to I-1
2. No
Skip to I-1
9. Don't know Skip to I-1
IF YES:
H-1c. Do you go to religious services every week, almost every week, once or twice a
month, a few times a year, or never?
1. Every week
2. Almost every week
3. Once or twice a month
4. A few times a year
5. Never
9. Don't know
I. Demographics
19
Now, I have a few questions so we can group your answers.
I-1. Are you currently married, widowed, divorced, separated or never married?
1 Married
2 Widowed
3 Divorced
4 Separated
5 Never married
I-2.
Could you please tell me what year you were born?
/
/
/
/
/
Refused.
I-3.
How much school have you completed?
a. Less than first grade
b. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grade
c. 5th or 6th grade
d. 7th or 8th grade
e.
9th grade
f.
10th grade
g.
11th grade
h. 12th grade, no diploma
i. high school graduate
j. GED
k. Some college, but no degree
1. Associate degree in college-academic program
m. Occupational/vocational certification program
n. Bachelor's degree (BA, AB, BS)
O. Master's degree (MA, MS, MENG, MED, MSW, MBA)
p. Professional school degree (MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD)
a Doctorate degree (PHD, EDD)
I-4.
Are you of Hispanic origin or descent?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't know
9. Refused
20
I-5.
Do you consider yourself white, Black or African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander,
Native American, or some other race?
1. White
2. Black or African-American
3. Asian/Pacific Islander
4. Native American, or
5. Some other race
ASK I-6a and I-6b ONLY IF IN THE DISABILITY SAMPLE..OTHERS GO TO I-7a
I-6a.
Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
I-6b.
Would other people consider you to have a disability?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
ASK EVERYONE
IF LIVING ALONE (A1=1), USE "YOUR TOTAL INCOME" IN NEXT QUESTION.
I-7a.
Considering all sources of income, would you say (your total income/the total combined
income of all family members living in your household) in the past 12 months was--under
$25,000, between $25,000 to just under $50,000, or more than $50,000?
1. Under $25,000
Ask I-7b
2. $25,000-$50,000
Ask I-7c
3. More than $50,000
Ask I-7d
8. Don't Know
Skip to I-7e
9. Refused
Skip to I-7e
I-7b. Is that under $10,000, $10,000 to $15,000, $15,000 to $20,000, or $20,000 to $25,000?
1. Under $10,000
2. $10,000 to just under $15,000
3. $15,000 to just under $20,000
4. $20,000 to just under $25,000
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
I-7c. Is that $25,000 to $30,000, $30,000 to $35,000,$35,000 to $40,000 or $40,000 to $50,000?
21
1. $25,000 to just under $30,000
2 $30,000 to just under $35,000
3 $35,000 to just under $40,000
4. $40,000 to just under $50,000
I-7d. Is that $50,000 to $60,000, $60,000 to $75,000,$75,000 or more?
1. $50,000 to just under $60,000
2. $60,000 to just under $75,000
3. $75,000 or more?
8. Don't know
9. Refused
I-7e. IF DON'T KNOW OR REFUSED IN I-7a: Would you say it is greater or less than
$30,000?
1. Greater than $30,000
10 Less than $30,000
10 Don't know
9. Refused
I-8. BY OBSERVATION (ASK ONLY IF NECESSARY) I am required to ask whether you are
male or female.
1. Male
2. Female
You've been very helpful. Sometimes we need to re-contact people to ask some follow-up
questions. Would it be okay for us to re-contact you? (IF YES, ASK: Could I please just have
your first name?
1. Yes
RECORD NAME
2. No
Sex of Interviewer: 1. Male 2. Female
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL.
APPENDIX B
2000 Census questions regarding disability
1. Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: blindness, deafness, or a
severe vision or hearing impairment?
2. Does this person have a long-lasting condition that substantially limits one or more basic
activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying?
3. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this
person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities:
a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating?
b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home?
C. Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office?
d. Working at a job or business?
TABLE 1: Demographic Characteristics and Comparison to Other Samples
Current Survey
SIPP^
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Overall
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Gender^^
Female
54.6%
51.1%
54.6%
51.1%
Marital Status
Married, not separated
48.4%
61.5%
52.3%
59.9%
Separated
3.2%
5.2%
3.3%
2.5%
Divorced
13.7%
9.8%
11.9%
8.6%
Widowed
18.7%
1.6%
17.2%
3.6%
Never married
16.0%
21.9%
15.5%
25.4%
Race
White
80.6%
82.9%
84.9%
84.9%
African-American
12.6%
9.1%
12.2%
11.1%
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.6%
1.8%
3.4%
2.0%
Native American
1.9%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
"Other"
4.2%
5.2%
Ethnicity
Hispanic origin
5.8%
6.4%
7.6%
9.1%
Age
Mean
55.9
42.6
55.1
40.2
18-24
5.5%
14.7%
5.2%
16.3%
25-34
9.8%
22.0%
11.4%
25.8%
35-44
15.6%
21.6%
15.1%
24.1%
45-54
16.8%
19.4%
15.3%
15.4%
55-64
14.3%
9.1%
16.3%
9.0%
65+
38.0%
13.2%
36.8%
9.4%
Region^^
Northeast
18.5%
21.0%
18.5%
21.0%
Midwest
25.3%
25.5%
25.3%
25.5%
South
35.6%
33.5%
35.6%
33.5%
West
20.6%
20.0%
20.6%
20.0%
City status
Urban
26.7%
27.3%
Suburban
46.0%
53.0%
Rural
27.3%
19.7%
Sample size (unweighted^^)
700
540
18,060
53,163
^ Survey of Income and Program Participation data from 1993-94 for those age 18+.
The SIPP disability definition includes impairments, activity limitations, and specific health
conditions as described in McNeil (1993) and Kruse (1997).
AA All figures in the current survey have been weighted by gender and region to reflect
national distributions, and by household size to account for differential probabilities of
selection (see text). This accounts for the identical gender and region breakdowns
for the SIPP sample and current sample.
TABLE 2: Disability Characteristics
Figures pertain to those in disability samples.
Current
SIPP
survey
(age 18+)
(1)
(2)
Limitation in work, housework, or
other activities
59.8%
Limitation in work or housework
61.7%
Severe vision impairment
18.7%
18.1%
Blindness
6.0%
3.8%
Severe hearing impairment
17.4%
22.7%
Deafness
2.3%
2.3%
Difficulty with walking, climbing
stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
62.8%
54.5%
Difficulty walking 1/4 mile
45.9%
38.8%
Unable to walk 1/4 mile
22.6%
20.3%
Use wheelchair
8.3%
3.2%
Use cane, crutches, walker
23.0%
11.0%
Learning disability
10.0%
4.9%
Difficulty remembering or concentrating
30.0%
Mental cndn. except learning dis.
11.7%
Difficulty dressing, bathing, or
getting around inside home
17.4%
13.5%
Difficulty going outside the home alone
to shop or visit doctor's office
25.2%
17.5%
Need help with any daily activities
31.9%
20.0%
Consider self to have disability
If none of above impairments or limitations
2.8%
Among all in disability sample
58.4%
Others consider one to have disability
If none of above impairments or limitations
0.8%
Among all in disability sample
59.5%
Age at which impairment/limitation began
At birth or in first year
8.1%
1-17
11.1%
18-34
19.4%
34-49
20.1%
50-64
20.5%
65+
19.9%
SIPP data are from Survey of Income and Program Participation, disability supplement, 1993-94.
See McNeil (1993) and Kruse (1997) for survey questions and definitions, and further results.
TABLE 3: Voter Turnout and Registration
Disability
Non-disability
Sample
Sample
Difference
(1)
(2)
Voted in November 1998
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
At polling place
46.0%
54.7%
-8.7% **
By absentee ballot
7.4%
4.8%
2.6% *
Voted in November 1996
67.6%
73.2%
-5.6% **
Last voted:
In November 1998
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
Not in November 1998 but within past 10 years
21.1%
19.1%
2.0%
More than 10 years ago
2.1%
0.6%
1.5% **
Never voted
17.2%
18.3%
-1.1%
Don't know when last voted
5.4%
2.5%
2.9% **
Don't know if ever voted
1.6%
0.0%
1.6% **
Registered to vote for 1998 elections
78.5%
81.1%
-2.6%
Registered to vote since 1/1/95
24.9%
26.7%
-1.8%
Driver's license agency
9.3%
11.2%
-1.9%
Disability agency
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Other public assistance agency
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
Mailed form to election office
1.6%
0.6%
1.0% *
At school, hospital, or on campus
1.1%
2.1%
-1.0%
County or gov't registration office
2.6%
2.8%
-0.2%
Registration drive
2.0%
3.0%
-1.0%
At polls on election day
1.4%
1.9%
-0.5%
Other way
1.5%
1.5%
0.0%
Don't know how registered
4.1%
2.6%
1.5%
Sample size
700
540
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 4: Problems in Voting at Polling Place
Encountered problems, if
Would expect problems, if
voted at polling place since 1988
haven't voted at polling place since 1988
Disability
Non-disability
Disability
Non-disability
Sample
Sample
Difference
Sample
Sample
Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Any problems encountered/expected in voting
8.2%
1.7%
6.5% **
27.5%
3.6%
23.9% **
If voted in 1998
5.8%
1.9%
3.9% **
If voted in 1989-97
12.2%
1.1%
11.1% **
Don't know if would have problems
4.4%
0.6%
3.8% **
Types of problems encountered or expected
(as percent of all voters or potential voters)
General mobility
1.7%
0.0%
1.7%
10.3%
0.0%
10.3%
Difficulty standing
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
5.1%
0.0%
5.1%
Difficulty walking
0.8%
0.0%
0.8%
5.2%
0.0%
5.2%
Getting to polling place
1.6%
0.9%
0.7%
8.8%
0.0%
8.8%
Finding polling place
0.5%
0.6%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Too far away
0.2%
0.3%
-0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Transportation problem
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
7.8%
0.0%
7.8%
Getting inside polling place (stairs/steps)
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
Inside polling place
2.9%
0.1%
2.8%
9.7%
3.2%
6.5%
Long lines
0.6%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Difficulty with booth
0.5%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Can't read
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
Difficulty seeing
1.3%
0.0%
1.3%
2.7%
0.0%
2.7%
Difficulty understanding how to vote/use machine
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
4.5%
3.2%
1.3%
Other problem
1.4%
0.5%
0.9%
2.9%
0.5%
2.4%
Sample size
515
425
185
115
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 5: Other Forms of Participation
Figures refer to those who have done activity within past 12 months.
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
Total number of first seven activities (average)
1.15
1.47
-0.32 **
Done any of first seven activities
51.3%
61.0%
-9.7% **
Any of first six on disability issues
8.4%
1) Contributed money to political party or candidate
12.7%
15.6%
-2.9%
2) Written or spoken to elected representative or
30.3%
39.8%
-9.5% **
public official
3) Attended political meeting
12.5%
14.6%
-2.1%
4) Written letter to newspaper
7.3%
9.0%
-1.7%
5) Contributed money to org. trying to influence
16.4%
21.9%
-5.5% **
gov't. policy or legislation
6) Otherwise worked with groups or on one's own
14.3%
19.1%
-4.8% **
to change gov't laws or policies
7) Worked with others on community problem
24.2%
27.6%
-3.4%
8) Worked to change private org.'s policies
10.1%
regarding people with disabilities
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 6: Demographic Characteristics and Participation
Distribution within
Political participation if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Other Forms (avg. number)
With
Without
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability Difference
Disability
Disability
Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
Overall
1.000
1.000
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
1.15
1.47
-0.32 **
Age
18-29
0.095
0.246
28.8%
33.6%
-4.8%
0.88
1.09
-0.21
30-44
0.211
0.336
45.7%
55.5%
-9.8% *
1.18
1.37
-0.19
45-64
0.311
0.285
53.7%
72.9%
-19.2% **
1.42
1.86
-0.44 **
65+
0.383
0.132
61.9%
91.5%
-29.6% **
1.01
1.76
-0.75 **
18-30
0.104
0.267
28.9%
34.3%
-5.4%
0.89
1.07
-0.18
31-40
0.132
0.247
42.2%
51.8%
-9.6%
1.12
1.31
-0.19
41-50
0.170
0.198
57.4%
63.4%
-6.0%
1.38
1.62
-0.24
51-60
0.161
0.127
46.9%
85.3%
-38.4% **
1.40
2.07
-0.67 **
61-70
0.148
0.098
68.8%
85.5%
-16.7% **
1.26
1.92
-0.66 *
71-80
0.193
0.050
59.6%
95.1%
-35.5% **
1.11
1.79
-0.68 *
80+
0.092
0.014
57.1%
100.0%
-42.9% **
0.60
1.64
-1.04
Gender
Female
0.544
0.511
51.3%
60.5%
-9.2% **
1.04
1.27
-0.23 **
Male
0.456
0.489
55.9%
58.4%
-2.5%
1.29
1.68
-0.39 **
Marital Status
Married, spouse present
0.484
0.615
57.9%
65.1%
-7.2% *
1.42
1.60
-0.18
Separated/divorced
0.168
0.114
45.6%
57.9%
-12.3%
0.98
1.40
-0.42 *
Widowed
0.187
0.052
57.3%
90.0%
-32.7% **
0.76
1.11
-0.35
Never married
0.161
0.219
42.5%
36.9%
5.6%
1.01
1.23
-0.22
Race
White
0.806
0.829
54.4%
60.4%
-6.0%
*
1.17
1.44
-0.27 **
African-American
0.126
0.091
49.7%
56.3%
-6.6%
0.85
1.50
-0.65 **
All others
0.068
0.080
49.4%
49.1%
0.3%
1.40
1.78
-0.38
Ethnicity
Hispanic origin
0.058
0.064
40.5%
37.3%
3.2%
1.05
1.47
-0.42
Non-hispanic origin
0.942
0.936
54.2%
61.0%
-6.8% **
1.16
1.48
-0.32 **
Education
8th grade or less
0.091
0.030
28.1%
57.6%
-29.5% **
0.38
0.55
-0.17
Some H.S., no degree
0.177
0.078
40.7%
40.6%
0.1%
0.75
0.75
0.00
H.S. degree or GED
0.293
0.193
52.2%
50.7%
1.5%
0.88
0.92
-0.04
More than H.S.
0.440
0.700
64.0%
64.0%
0.0%
1.70
1.75
-0.05
B.A. degree
0.094
0.191
66,5%
64.8%
1.7%
2.03
1.87
0.16
Graduate degree
0.057
0.140
77.0%
69.2%
7.8%
2.36
2.65
-0.29
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 7: Prediction of Voting with Demographic Characteristics
Prediction of voting in 1998 using probit regressions.^
Sample:
Disability sample
Non-disability sample
Full sample
Full sample
Full sample
Indep. variables
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Female
-0.064
(1.42)
-0.011
(0.22)
-0.012
(0.27)
-0.016
(0.35)
-0.014
(0.31)
Married
0.067
(0.92)
0.079
(1.12)
0.083
(1.31)
0.075
(1.16)
0.086
(1.35)
Separated/divorced
-0.012
(0.15)
-0.004
(0.04)
0.006
(0.07)
-0.007
(0.08)
0.010
(0.12)
Widowed
0.012
(0.13)
0.202
(1.50)
0.084
(0.91)
0.122
(1.33)
0.082
(0.87)
African-American
0.048
(0.72)
0.085
(1.01)
0.071
(1.00)
0.076
(1.08)
0.076
(1.07)
Asian/Pacific Islander
-0.325
(1.25)
-0.333
(1.31)
-0.301
(1.24)
-0.330
(1.35)
-0.307
(1.28)
Native American
-0.187
(1.04)
-0.089
(0.36)
-0.108
(0.52)
-0.112
(0.54)
-0.111
(0.53)
Other race
0.051
(0.53)
0.031
(0.28)
0.027
(0.27)
0.032
(0.33)
0.030
(0.30)
Some HS (9-12)
0.210
(2.34) **
0.080
(0.47)
0.110
(0.98)
0.107
(0.93)
0.025
(0.15)
HS degree
0.320
(3.85) **
0.188
(1.16)
0.207
(1.94)
0.206
(1.84) *
0.126
(0.81)
Some college
0.406
(4.96) **
0.356
(2.35) **
0.360
(3.52)
**
0.362
(3.40)
**
0.301
(2.09) **
AA degree
0.328
(3.62)
**
0.285
(1.88) **
0.291
(2.77)
**
0.291
(2.68) **
0.239
(1.62)
BA degree
0.406
(4.73) **
0.354
(2.42) **
0.359
(3.56)
**
0.360
(3.46)
**
0.304
(2.16) **
Graduate degree
0.435
(4.78)
**
0.343
(2.40) **
0.355
(3.52)
:
0.352
(3.37) **
0.303
(2.17)
**
Age
0.006
(4.13) **
0.015
(7.64) **
0.014
(8.58) **
0.016
(8.23) **
0.014
(8.57)
**
Disability
-0.197
(4.93) **
0.307
(3.58) **
Disability*age
-0.011
(5.15) **
Disability*No HS
-0.422
(2.63) **
Disability*Some HS
-0.175
(1.87) *
Disability*HS degree
-0.142
(2.00) **
Disability*Some college
-0.193
(2.33) **
Disability*AA degree
-0.262
(2.41)
**
Disability*BA degree
-0.187
(1.79) *
Disability*Grad degree
-0.086
(0.66)
Log-likelihood
-408.19
-287.57
-667.09
-658.79
-665.58
n
650
521
1171
1171
1171
* p<.10 ** p<.05
^ Reported numbers are derivatives (dF/dX), represented estimated change in probability for one-unit change
in independent variable, assuming other variables are at mean values.
TABLE 8: Prediction of Other Forms of Participation with Demographic Characteristics
Any Other Participation (probits^)
Number of Forms of Other Participation (OLS)
Indep. variables
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Female
-0.085
(1.87) *
-0.088
(1.94)
*
-0.085
(1.87)
*
-0.313
(2.45) **
-0.317
(2.48)
**
-0.315
(2.45)
Married
0.084
(1.31)
0.081
(1.26)
0.084
(1.31)
0.100
(0.54)
0.092
(0.50)
0.101
(0.55)
Separated/divorced
0.023
(0.28)
0.018
(0.22)
0.023
(0.27)
-0.164
(0.74)
-0.175
(0.79)
-0.165
(0.74)
Widowed
0.037
(0.34)
0.055
(0.50)
0.037
(0.34)
-0.465
(1.73) *
-0.413
(1.52)
-0.460
(1.71)
African-American
0.118
(1.61)
0.121
(1.66)
0.117
(1.59)
0.364
(1.74) *
0.368
(1.77)
0.364
(1.73)
Asian/Pacific Islander
-0.356
(1.69) *
-0.373
(1.78)
*
-0.357
(1.70) *
0.402
(0.37)
0.362
(0.34)
0.398
(0.37)
Native American
0.023
(0.11)
0.021
(0.10)
0.025
(0.12)
-0.097
(0.19)
-0.099
(0.20)
-0.083
(0.16)
Other race
0.085
(0.93)
0.088
(0.96)
0.084
(0.92)
0.343
(1.17)
0.350
(1.21)
0.338
(1.15)
Some HS (9-12)
0.226
(2.18)
:
0.230
(2.23) **
0.228
(1.64)
0.476
(1.95) *
0.471
(1.94) *
0.418
(1.26)
HS degree
0.303
(3.09) **
0.305
(3.11)
**
0.300
(2.28) **
0.667
(3.05) **
0.654
(2.97) **
0.608
(2.05) **
Some college
0.365
(3.80)
**
0.369
(3.86) **
0.360
(2.84)
**
1.219
(5.00) **
1.216
(4.97) **
1.163
(3.68)
**
AA degree
0.361
(3.85) **
0.363
(3.87) **
0.356
(2.93) **
1.099
(4.40) **
1.094
(4.36) **
1.002
(3.11) **
BA degree
0.446
(5.09)
**
0.449
(5.16) **
0.444
(3.93)
**
1.663
(6.57) **
1.666
(6.57) **
1.593
(4.97)
**
Graduate degree
0.471
(6.01) **
0.472
(6.06)
**
0.471
(4.82)
:
2.325
(8.09)
**
2.317
(8.04) **
2.279
(6.51) **
Age
0.005
(3.40) **
0.006
(3.63) **
0.005
(3.39)
**
0.021
(4.58) **
0.024
(4.72) **
0.021
(4.53) **
Disability
-0.082
(2.06)
**
0.263
(3.01)
**
-0.173
(1.57)
0.876
(3.28)
**
Disability*age
-0.007
(3.58) **
-0.020
(3.70) **
Disability*No HS
-0.096
(0.58)
-0.374
(1.25)
Disability*Some HS
-0.111
(1.14)
-0.185
(0.73)
Disability*HS degree
-0.086
(1.25)
-0.185
(1.15)
Disability*Some college
-0.056
(0.79)
-0.239
(1.10)
Disability*AA degree
-0.033
(0.33)
0.151
(0.47)
Disability*BA degree
-0.073
(0.75)
-0.035
(0.11)
Disability*Grad degree
-0.180
(1.46)
-0.439
(1.07)
Constant
-0.593
(1.90)
*
-0.705
(2.17) **
-0.525
(1.43)
Log-likelihood
-711.42
-706.98
-711.18
R-squared
0.198
0.203
0.199
n
1180
1180
1180
1180
1180
1180
* p<.10 ** p<.05
A For probits, reported numbers are derivatives (dF/dX), represented estimated change in probability for one-unit change
in independent variable, assuming other variables are at mean values.
TABLE 9: Disability Characteristics, Participation, and Voting Difficulties
Voted in 1998
Difficulties in voting
Other forms
of participation
Diff. from
Absentee
Registered
Avg.
Diff. from
At all
non-disability
ballot
to vote
Actual^
Expected^
number
non-disability
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Any disability
53.4%
-6.1%
7.4%
78.5%
8.2%
27.5%
1.16
-0.31
Severe disability
48.8%
-10.7%
7.8%
75.3%
13.2%
43.6%
0.98
-0.49
Limited in work, housework, or other activities
50.7%
-8.8%
6.2%
78.1%
10.6%
34.3%
1.17
-0.30
Severe vision impairment
47.3%
-12.2%
6.0%
77.2%
14.9%
52.0%
1.02
-0.45
Blind
52.5%
-7.0%
4.5%
79.9%
17.6%
43.5%
0.98
-0.49
Severe hearing impairment
58.8%
-0.7%
10.6%
84.9%
7.8%
41.7%
1.14
-0.33
Difficulty with walking, climbing
stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
53.2%
-6.3%
8.3%
79.6%
9.1%
33.5%
1.20
-0.27
Difficulty walking 1/4 mile
49.9%
-9.6%
8.3%
79.5%
11.1%
39.6%
1.10
-0.37
Unable to walk 1/4 mile
46.3%
-13.2%
8.9%
79.4%
8.9%
50.3%
0.87
-0.60
Use wheelchair
38.2%
-21.3%
13.5%
72.1%
15.3%
45.1%
1.12
-0.35
Use cane, crutches, walker
48.0%
-11.5%
12.4%
78.4%
13.5%
50.9%
1.18
-0.29
Difficulty learning
33.4%
-26.1%
2.8%
70.2%
17.1%
57.4%
0.85
-0.62
Difficulty remembering or concentrating
41.4%
-18.1%
7.8%
72.5%
10.9%
40.7%
0.88
-0.59
Difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting
around inside home
39.3%
-20.2%
7.5%
67.7%
14.5%
52.3%
1.01
-0.46
Difficulty going outside home alone
to shop or visit doctor's office
35.8%
-23.7%
6.7%
72.8%
23.9%
52.7%
0.86
-0.61
Consider self to have disability
Yes
47.0%
-12.5%
7.5%
75.3%
11.8%
37.3%
1.03
-0.44
No
62.2%
2.7%
7.5%
82.9%
3.7%
8.6%
1.34
-0.13
Need help with any daily activities
42.3%
-17.2%
5.4%
70.8%
19.2%
49.6%
0.97
-0.50
A "Actual" difficulties refer to those who voted since 1988, while "expected" difficulties refer to those who have not voted since 1988.
See Table 2 for prevalence of conditions.
TABLE 10: Prediction of Participation with Disability Characteristics
Other Forms of Participation
Whether Voted in 1998 (probits^)
Any (probits^)
Number (OLS)
Indep. variables
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Functional limitations:
Blind
-0.060 (0.54)
0.007 (0.07)
-0.116 (1.35)
-0.091 (1.06)
-0.175
(0.85)
-0.112 (0.54)
Severe vision impairment, but not blind
-0.182 (2.12) **
-0.167 (1.92) *
-0.028 (0.40)
-0.027 (0.38)
-0.024 (0.11)
-0.001 (0.00)
Severe hearing impairment
-0.045 (0.68)
-0.052 (0.77)
-0.054 (0.89)
-0.058 (0.95)
-0.196
(1.16)
-0.199 (1.17)
Use wheelchair
-0.345 (3.63) **
-0.154 (1.37)
0.055 (0.68)
0.126 (1.38)
0.072
(0.35)
0.247 (1.01)
No wheelchair, but cane/crutches/walker
-0.172 (2.56) **
-0.059 (0.77)
-0.021 (0.35)
0.021 (0.32)
-0.041 (0.24)
0.043 (0.23)
No mobility aid, cannot walk 1/4 mile
-0.198 (2.22) **
-0.176 (1.80) *
-0.215 (2.64) **
-0.206 (2.42) **
-0.456
(2.49)
**
-0.429 (2.16) **
No mobility aid, can walk 1/4 mile with difficulty
-0.104 (1.50)
-0.108 (1.40)
0.041 (0.68)
0.045 (0.70)
0.008
(0.05)
0.012 (0.07)
Otherwise restricted in lifting, etc.
0.047 (0.56)
0.045 (0.51)
0.096 (1.47)
0.100 (1.48)
0.434
(2.01)
**
0.435 (1.96) **
Difficulty.learning
-0.054 (0.64)
-0.005 (0.06)
0.020 (0.26)
0.046 (0.61)
0.078
(0.42)
0.138 (0.74)
Difficulty remembering or concentrating
-0.159 (2.67) **
-0.115 (1.98) **
-0.116 (2.28) **
-0.101 (1.97) **
-0.296
(2.15)
**
-0.247 (1.75) *
Activity limitations:
Limited in work, housework, other activity
0.031 (0.57)
0.001 (0.02)
0.036 (0.24)
Difficulty inside home
-0.055 (0.68)
-0.036 (0.51)
0.093 (0.53)
Difficulty going outside home alone
-0.302 (4.07) **
-0.107 (1.66) *
-0.329 (2.19) **
Need help with daily activities
0.002 (0.03)
0.014 (0.26)
-0.056 (0.39)
Log-likelihood
-662.94
-658.84
-709.51
-708.3
R-squared
0.200
0.201
n
1171
1170
1180
1179
1180
1179
* p<.10 ** p<.05
All regressions include the demographic variables from the Table 7 regressions.
TABLE 11: Mobilization in 1998 Elections
Proportion contacted
Voting rate
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability Difference
Disability
Disability
Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Contacted by either major political party
Yes
0.306
0.370
-0.064 **
65.5%
72.4%
-6.9%
No
47.0%
52.1%
-5.1%
Contacted by someone else about supporting
specific candidates
Yes
0.111
0.092
0.019
53.6%
70.4%
-16.8%
*
No
52.8%
58.3%
-5.5%
Talked to by anyone about registering
or getting out to vote
Yes
0.238
0.235
0.003
59.1%
70.7%
-11.6%
No
51.1%
55.9%
-4.8%
Contacted about supporting candidates by:
Any political party
0.325
0.377
-0.052 *
Friends
0.013
0.011
0.002
Family members
0.002
0.003
-0.001
Co-workers
0.000
0.000
0.000
Organizations
0.025
0.029
-0.004
Someone else
0.003
0.009
-0.006
Talked to by anyone about registering
or getting out to vote by:
Friends
0.039
0.049
-0.010
Family members
0.010
0.029
-0.019 **
Co-workers
0.015
0.029
-0.014 *
Political parties
0.092
0.092
0.000
Other organizations
0.050
0.032
0.018
Someone else
0.019
0.029
-0.010
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 12: Political Efficacy, Competencies, and Participation
Distribution within
Participation if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Number of other forms
With
Without
With Without
With Without
Disability DisabilityDifference
Disability Disability Difference
Disability Disability Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Overall
1.000
1.000
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
1.15
1.47
-0.32 **
1. Follow gov't and public affairs:
Most of time
0.575
0.581
-0.006
64.8%
71.6%
-6.8%
*
1.55
1.97
-0.42 **
Some of time
0.225
0.280
-0.055 **
45.2%
51.7%
-6.5%
0.84
0.96
-0.12
Now and then or hardly at all
0.190
0.139
0.051 **
27.7%
24.4%
3.3%
0.39
0.42
-0.04
2. Public officials don't care much about
Agree
0.565
0.474
0.091 **
50.2%
53.4%
-3.2%
1.08
1.47
-0.39 **
people like me
Disagree
0.286
0.440
-0.154 **
57.7%
65.3%
-7.6%
1.56
1.48
0.08
3. People like me don't have say about gov't Agree
0.517
0.412
0.105 **
48.1%
53.9%
-5.8%
0.93
1.28
-0.35 **
Disagree
0.394
0.542
-0.148 **
61.6%
64.1%
-2.5%
1.58
1.69
-0.11
4. Politics and gov't sometimes too
Agree
0.561
0.442
0.119 **
49.6%
57.3%
-7.7% *
0.89
1.16
-0.27 **
complicated to understand
Disagree
0.380
0.519
-0.139 **
58.2%
61.8%
-3.6%
1.60
1.72
-0.12
5. Am well-qualified to participate in politics
Agree
0.614
0.695
-0.081 **
58.6%
61.6%
-3.0%
1.46
1.69
-0.23 *
Disagree
0.314
0.253
0.061 **
42.5%
53.4%
-10.9%
*
0.66
0.91
-0.25 *
6. Am better-informed about gov't/politics
Agree
0.470
0.504
-0.034
63.2%
68.0%
-4.8%
1.66
2.03
-0.37 **
than most people
Disagree
0.377
0.367
0.010
39.2%
47.0%
-7.8%
0.65
0.83
-0.18
7. People w/disabilities have as much
Agree
0.622
0.690
-0.068 **
56.2%
60.1%
-3.9%
1.24
1.51
-0.27 **
influence as other groups in gov't.
Disagree
0.262
0.222
0.040
49.5%
59.2%
-9.7%
1.09
1.45
-0.36
8. Gov't officials treat people w/disabilities
Agree
0.493
0.592
-0.099 **
56.5%
61.7%
-5.2%
1.23
1.48
-0.25 *
with as much respect as others
Disagree
0.334
0.247
0.087 **
48.6%
53.1%
-4.5%
1.25
1.54
-0.29
Better than others at:
9. Ability to work with others
0.498
0.677
-0.179 **
57.8%
63.4%
-5.6%
1.44
1.65
-0.21
10. Ability to speak in public
0.276
0.342
-0.066 **
59.0%
63.9%
-4.9%
1.89
2.24
-0.35 *
11. Ability to lead a group
0.359
0.524
-0.165 **
63.9%
68.4%
-4.5%
1.90
2.13
-0.23
12. Ability to compose an effective
0.314
0.428
-0.114 **
60.3%
61.8%
-1.5%
1.82
1.93
-0.11
letter to elected official
13. Communicating ideas to others
0.451
0.601
-0.150 **
59.0%
60.2%
-1.2%
1.64
1.73
-0.09
TABLE 13: Employment and Participation
Distribution within
Political participation rates if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Number of other forms
With
Without
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability Disability Difference
Disability Disability Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Age 18-64
Employed
0.467 **
0.795
53.0%
54.8%
-1.8%
1.52
1.50
0.02
Not employed
0.533 **
0.205
42.6%
55.3%
-12.7% *
1.02
1.27
-0.25
Age 65+
Employed
0.075 **
0.175
69.1%
80.7%
-11.6%
1.75
1.44
0.31
Not employed
0.925 **
0.825
61.3%
93.8%
-32.5% **
0.94
1.83
-0.89 **
If employed
Part time^
0.275 **
0.176
45.2%
51.7%
-6.5%
1.72
1.34
0.38
Full-time^
0.700 **
0.818
58.8%
55.9%
2.9%
1.43
1.51
-0.08
Union member
Yes
0.184
0.155
72.6%
58.6%
14.0%
1.87
2.16
-0.29
No
0.816
0.845
51.2%
55.1%
-3.9%
1.48
1.37
0.11
Spoken to by co-workers about voting
0.026
0.039
* Significant difference between disability and non-disability samples at 90% level
** 95% level
^ Part-time is usual weekly hours of 1-34, while full-time is usual weekly hours of 35 or more.
Part-time and full-time figures do not sum to one due to missing hours data.
TABLE 14: Transportation and Political Participation
Distribution within
Participation rates if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Number of other forms
With
Without
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability Disability Difference
Disability
Disability Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Overall
1.000
1.000
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
1.15
1.47
-0.32 **
Days of travel in avg. week
Mean
3.34 **
5.18
0-2
0.441 **
0.130
49.7%
62.6%
-12.9% *
0.89
1.08
-0.20
3-4
0.150 *
0.111
58.1%
70.0%
-11.9%
1.46
1.61
-0.15
5-7
0.409 **
0.759
55.9%
57.8%
-1.9%
1.37
1.52
-0.15
If employed
0-4 days
0.149
0.139
56.5%
56.3%
0.2%
2.48
1.36
1.12 **
5-7 days
0.851
0.861
55.0%
55.6%
-0.6%
1.37
1.57
-0.20
If not employed, age 18-64
0-4 days
0.786 **
0.480
43.8%
60.7%
-16.9% **
1.01
0.84
0.17
5-7 days
0.214 **
0.520
44.5%
50.1%
-5.6%
1.10
1.57
-0.47
If not employed, age 65+
0-4 days
0.823 **
0.509
58.5%
92.1%
-33.6% **
0.80
2.03
-1.23 **
5-7 days
0.177 **
0.491
71.1%
95.4%
-24.3% **
1.69
1.62
0.07
Usual transportation mode
Own or family vehicle
0.812 **
0.916
56.2%
60.1%
-3.9%
1.28
1.49
-0.21 **
Someone else's vehicle
0.063 **
0.019
36.4%
63.9%
-27.5%
0.59
1.42
-0.83 **
Public transportation
0.070 **
0.040
49.0%
59.9%
-10.9%
0.70
1.14
-0.44
Other
0.056 **
0.024
30.7%
26.6%
4.1%
0.82
1.15
-0.33
Have vehicle one can drive
Yes
0.681 **
0.930
59.6%
61.0%
-1.4%
1.40
1.51
-0.11
If employed
0.876 **
0.944
57.7%
57.1%
0.6%
1.64
1.50
0.14
If not employed, age 18-6
0.624 **
0.899
47.7%
56.7%
-9.0%
1.31
1.27
0.04
If not employed, age 65+
0.555 **
0.893
75.4%
95.0%
-19.6% **
1.15
1.97
-0.82 **
No
0.319 **
0.070
39.9%
39.5%
0.4%
0.64
1.03
-0.39
Difficulty in travel
Never or rarely
0.660
0.633
56.5%
59.5%
-3.0%
1.12
1.51
-0.39 **
Occasionally
0.170 *
0.213
47.8%
62.4%
-14.6% **
1.28
1.33
-0.05
Often/very often
0.096
0.119
56.2%
58.3%
-2.1%
1.43
1.43
0.00
Always
0.048
0.033
31.5%
45,5%
-14.0%
1.04
1.69
-0.65
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 15: Group Involvement, Religious Attendance, and Participation
Distribution within
Participation rates if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Other forms
With
Without
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability Difference
Disability
Disability Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Overall
1.000
1.000
53.4%
59.5%
-6.1% **
1.15
1.47
-0.32 **
Regularly meet with any groups or organizations
Yes
0.413 **
0.546
63.9%
65.3%
-1.4%
1.86
1.97
-0.11
1/month
0.154
0.179
74.1%
66.0%
8.1%
1.87
2.07
-0.20
2-3/month
0.097 **
0.138
61.4%
67.6%
-6.2%
2.32
2.12
0.20
4+/month
0.143 **
0.219
54.3%
63.8%
-9.5%
1.59
1.81
-0.22
No
0.587 **
0.454
45.7%
52.4%
-6.7%
0.67
0.87
-0.20 *
Participate in disability groups or organizations
0.053
44.5%
2.33
Ever attend religious services
Yes
0.590 **
0.700
58.9%
65.5%
-6.6%
*
1.32
1.56
-0.24 *
Every week or almost every week
0.377 *
0.432
65.2%
68.2%
-3.0%
1.36
1.67
-0.31 **
Once or twice per month
0.115
0.138
57.4%
55.4%
2.0%
1.42
1.65
-0.23
Few times a year
0.097
*
0.131
37.8%
67.6%
-29.8%
**
1.04
1.07
-0.03
No
0.411 **
0.300
45.1%
45.0%
0.1%
0.92
1.29
-0.37 **
Think of self as part of church/denom.
0.230 **
0.135
39.5%
40.0%
-0.5%
0.93
1.29
-0.36
Don't think of self as part of church/denom.
0.181
0.165
52.7%
49.1%
3.6%
0.91
1.29
-0.38
* Difference between disability and non-disability samples is significant at the 90% level ** 95% level
TABLE 16: Household Income and Political Participation
Distribution within
Participation rates if in group at left
samples (proportions)
Voter turnout
Number of other forms
With
Without
With
Without
With
Without
Disability
Disability
Disability
Disability Difference
Disability
Disability
Difference
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
All respondents
Less than $25,000
0.437 **
0.148
43.9%
49.9%
-6.0%
0.66
0.95
-0.29 *
$25-50,000
0.236 **
0.289
57.4%
49.4%
8.0%
1.57
1.19
0.38 *
$50,000 or more
0.164 **
0.426
66.4%
66.0%
0.4%
1.97
1.84
0.13
Don't know or refused
0.163
0.136
60.4%
70.8%
-10.4%
1.08
1.51
-0.43 *
Less than $10,000
0.143 **
0.027
36.7%
59.6%
-22.9%
0.65
0.81
-0.16
$10,000-$19,999
0.197 **
0.064
50.4%
49.7%
0.7%
0.75
0.70
0.05
$20,000-$29,999
0.123
0.105
48.2%
45.5%
2.7%
1.00
1.28
-0.28
$30,000-$39,999
0.088 **
0.146
49.7%
44.4%
5.3%
1.19
1.31
-0.12
$40,000-$49,999
0.060
0.075
65.4%
55.1%
10.3%
1.81
0.92
0.89 **
$50,000-$59,999
0.039 **
0.099
66.2%
63.2%
3.0%
1.88
1.41
0.47
$60,000-$74,999
0.038 **
0.123
70.2%
63.1%
7.1%
2.40
1.56
0.84
$75,000 or more
0.076 **
0.184
61.2%
68.1%
-6.9%
1.80
2.23
-0.43
Employed
Less than $25,000
0.249 **
0.120
39.7%
37.0%
2.7%
0.54
1.01
-0.47 *
$25-50,000
0.330
0.302
54.2%
44.0%
10.2%
1.49
1.22
0.27
$50,000 or more
0.269 **
0.463
62.5%
64.1%
-1.6%
2.55
1.80
0.75 **
Don't know or refused
0.151
0.115
67.8%
69.2%
-1.4%
1.36
1.44
-0.08
Not employed, age 18-64
Less than $25,000
0.512 **
0.198
35.2%
49.0%
-13.8%
0.73
0.74
-0.01
$25-50,000
0.206
0.239
43.3%
44.6%
-1.3%
1.54
0.79
0.75 **
$50,000 or more
0.158 **
0.385
64.6%
61.6%
3.0%
1.26
1.84
-0.58
Don't know or refused
0.124
0.177
53.3%
62.0%
-8.7%
1.12
0.97
0.15
Not employed, age 65+
Less than $25,000
0.543 **
0.244
53.7%
92.7%
-39.0% **
0.64
1.03
-0.39
$25-50,000
0.180
0.296
78.5%
92.5%
-14.0%
1.71
1.55
0.16
$50,000 or more
0.073 **
0.250
83.3%
100.0%
-16.7% *
1.53
2.34
-0.81
Don't know or refused
0.204
0.211
58.4%
89.4%
-31.0% **
0.86
2.55
-1.69 **
* Statistically significant difference at p<.10 ** p<.05
TABLE 17: Prediction of Voting with All Characteristics
Probits^ predicting probability of voting in 1998.
Indep. variables
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Any disability
-0.194 (4.87) **
-0.146 (3.01) **
Political efficacy (high score=disagree)
Public officials don't care
0.032 (2.02) **
0.032 (2.01) **
0.032 (2.02) **
People like me don't have say
-0.001 (0.04)
-0.001 (0.03)
0.000 (0.02)
Politics too complicated
0.010 (0.67)
0.012 (0.82)
0.012 (0.80)
Well-qualified for politics
-0.018 (1.17)
-0.018 (1.15)
-0.018 (1.14)
Better-informed than most
-0.010 (0.63)
-0.008 (0.55)
-0.008 (0.54)
Mobilization
Contacted by pol. party in campaign
0.105 (1.99) **
0.102 (1.92) *
0.104 (1.96) **
Contacted by someone else in campaign
0.031 (0.37)
0.036 (0.43)
0.036 (0.43)
Encouraged to register or vote
0.073 (1.23)
0.071 (1.19)
0.070 (1.17)
Transportation
Days of travel per week
-0.002 (0.13)
0.055 (0.90)
0.061 (0.97)
Have vehicle one can drive
0.147 (2.02) **
0.118 (1.56)
0.092 (1.10)
Frequency of transportation problems
0.010 (0.56)
0.011 (0.63)
0.011 (0.58)
Employment and social activities
Employed
-0.027 (0.42)
-0.020 (0.31)
-0.018 (0.27)
Union member
0.009 (0.11)
0.013 (0.17)
0.013 (0.17)
Meet regularly with groups/orgs.
0.051 (1.07)
0.049 (1.01)
0.040 (0.81)
Ever attend religious services
0.084 (1.59)
0.078 (1.47)
0.075 (1.41)
Household income
Household income $25,000-$50,000
-0.065 (0.99)
-0.067 (1.01)
-0.072 (1.07)
Household income $50,000+
0.030 (0.42)
0.029 (0.40)
0.027 (0.38)
Household income not reported
0.096 (1.18)
0.087 (1.06)
0.084 (1.01)
Disability breakdowns
Difficulty remembering/concentrating
-0.107 (1.96) **
-0.104 (1.63)
-0.112 (1.71) *
Severe vision impairment
-0.150 (1.70) *
-0.105 (1.06)
-0.101 (0.98)
Cannot walk 1/4 mile, no mobility devices
-0.158 (1.69) *
-0.142 (1.40)
-0.144 (1.37)
Mobility devices or difficulty walking 1/4 mile
-0.101 (1.89) *
-0.089 (1.48)
-0.092 (1.52)
Difficulty going outside alone
-0.322 (5.38) **
-0.286 (3.78) **
0.087 (0.58)
Other type of disability
-0.052 (1.02)
-0.041 (0.72)
-0.048 (0.82)
Difficulty going outside and:
No regular meetings with groups/orgs.
-0.215 (1.60)
No vehicle one can drive
-0.172 (1.17)
Take trips less than 5 days/week
-0.203 (1.29)
Log-likelihood
-669.58
-553.22
-662.48
-548.50
-547.04
n
1171
999
1171
999
999
* p<.10 ** p<.05
A Figures represent probability effects (dF/dX) of one-unit change at means of other variables. All regressions include demographic variables.
FIGURE 1: Age Patterns in Voter Turnout, November 1998
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
Citizens.without
60.0%
Disabilities
Probability of voting
50.0%
Citizens with
Disabilities
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
81
30
Age