Commentary on the Meaning of Race and Income Inequity to Disabi=

lity Policy
Sender: owner-dpolicy@trip.tripil.com
Precedence: bulk
X_Mailing_List_Server: Majordomo 1.94.1
X_Mailing_List_Provider: TRIPIL (http://www.tripil.com)

>From the web page
http://www.mswitzer.org/sem99/papers/fujiura.html

Paper presented to 1999 Switzer Seminar 

The Implications of Emerging Demographics:

A Commentary on the Meaning of Race and Income Inequity to
Disability Policy

Glenn T. Fujiura, Ph.D.

Department on Disability and Human Development

University of Illinois at Chicago

Preparation of this article was supported in part by Grant No.
H185A200211 from the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research

Glenn T. Fujiura, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago

Key Terms: demography, disability, families, minorities,
poverty, prevalence, race

Address Correspondence to:
Glenn T. Fujiura, Ph.D.
Department on Disability and Human Development (M/C 626)
University of Illinois at Chicago
1640 W. Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60608

Introduction

In the following pages I paint a demographic portrait of
Americans with a disability. A very broad brush will be used.
Though many different demographic features, methodological
concerns, and disability issues are explored, each coalesces
around a core question -- what is the significance of race and
ethnicity to those of us in the disability community? I say
"address" the question rather than "answer" for the very
practical reason that I have no answers.

This was the question of President Clinton's Initiative on Race
(Executive Order 13050). I doubt anyone believed the response
would be anything but "yes." However, the ways in which race
affects us remain very much a matter of debate. The lesson of
the Presidential initiative was that while we all understand in
very general terms the profound influence of race, we truly do
not understand its "genesis and consequences" (Advisory Board to
the President's Initiative on Race, 1998, p. 3). Until we do
understand its consequences and look deeply into its history and
dynamics, problems remain ill-defined and solutions elusive. As
always, the devil is in the details.

In the recent flurry of public debate over affirmative action,
and in all the rhetoric generated by the Presidential race
initiative, I am a somewhat surprised that we have not directly
addressed this question of race in greater depth within the
disability community. If we were to poll people in the field, I
am certain the consensus answer -- implicit in words if not
deeds - would be a resounding "yes" Race is a standard item in
our list of disability concerns. We have our centers, and
initiatives, and demonstration projects, coalitions, caucuses,
special interest groups. To its collective credit, the
disability community has moved from relative apathy to
consistent concern over the past two decades. But do we agree on
how it matters?

Perspectives on Policy Analysis

My focus on matters of race and ethnicity is stimulated not with
a specific interest in minority affairs nor on demographics, but
rather with my perspective on the connection of research to the
development and implementation of public policy. I have long
believed one of the most useful roles filled by social
scholarship is the very basic act of describing our societies.
Raw information has the power to inform policy decisions and
galvanize advocacy (e.g., Fujiura, 1994). In this paper I
approach the disability policy implications of race indirectly -
by looking at American demography, and in particular the
demography of disability. The demographic work in turn has led
me to two familiar themes in disability policy - the role of
race and poverty. Though the thought is not new to the policy
dialogue, I argue for a reaffirmation of their relevance to the
community of disability concerns and to national domestic policy
generally.

I am not trained in the disciplines of public policy - a
significant deficit since my work is often characterized as
policy-related. I still struggle with operational definitions of
policy research and analysis. "Policy analysis" strikes me as
one of those terms we all intuitively understand but when
pressed, cannot exactly define -- much like the word
"disability." So it is that I tread carefully here. As I address
later in the paper, my perspective very much parallels evolving
views on disability - as a process rather than a definable
entity. There are three features I consider central to
disability policy analysis research: (1) provision of
information relevant to agenda setting, decision-making and
advocacy, (2) focus on choices in the public domain where
alternatives typically represent competition for limited
economic (and public) resources, (3) incorporation of values,
and (4) a pragmatic, non-paradigmatic approach to research
("methodological multiculturalism" to paraphrase Datta, 1982).

The emphasis given here to disability statistics reflects my
belief in the value of basic factual information, but I
recognize these facts for what they are - merely the "outer
shell" of inquiry. Very few relevant questions are directly
answerable via statistical summaries of populations. This is for
me a starting point and I defer to other methodological
"cultures" to round out the portrait in order to inform
disability policy.

Perspective on Demographic Inquiry

There are many incarnations of demographic inquiry and likely
none with much inherent appeal to the casual observer. Ranging
from the basic expository head counts of the national censuses
to multi-equation mathematical models of population movement or
labor markets, the discipline hews to its core meaning from the
Greek translation, "description of the people." The mechanics of
case definition, sampling, estimation, and description do not
inspire great passion. But as the heroine of the Undoing of
Lamia Gurdleneck notes, "It's not the figures themselves, it's
what you do with them that matters" (Kendall & Stuart, 1967).

Indeed, the roots of demography lie in what was termed the
"political arithmetic" of migration, poverty, and literacy in
England in the 1600s (Clark, 1972, p. 16). Of significance to
the present discussion, the focus of these political
arithmeticians (and their statistics) was reform on matters of
health care (Wright, 1988). Oberschall (1972) notes that the
demand for extensive and detailed information by "social
reformers, civic groups, philanthropists" was the foundation of
much statistical work in the 19th century in order to provide a
baseline for future solutions (p. 6). Though a veneer of
"science" now encompasses demography and population statistics,
the connection to reform as a fundamental purpose remains close
to the surface. A recent debate has emerged within public health
for example, regarding the proper role of statistical
surveillance and epidemiology - whether research that directs
attention to social inequality is an act of an objective science
or act of policy advocacy (Krieger, 1999; Savitz, Poole, &
Miller, 1999). While I do not venture into this debate, I make
it clear that this paper is not about demographics, but rather
the policy implications of demographic data. Demography has deep
roots in the analysis of societies. Again, it is not the numbers
but what you do with them that truly counts.

Perspectives on Labels and Definition

The matter of language must be addressed prior to the numbers.
There are few universal conventions in how human variance is
defined and labeled. The potential for double damnation on
matters of race and disability is substantial.

Race and ethnicity. Cursory review of materials related to
disability and ethnic and racial minorities (which I will refer
to hereafter as simply "minorities") reveals layers of labels,
with often variable meanings: cultural diversity, cultural
pluralism, culture and diversity, cultural competence, cultural
sensitivity, multicultural, transcultural, etc. While the
"multicultural" word has achieved a certain degree of common
usage in the field, the sheer breadth of the concept serves to
obscure direct discussions on race. Culture is pervasive.
Culture and its corollary, competence, defines an enormous
agenda for the field because it reflects not just a constituency
of people, but skills, attitudes, policies, statutes, and
practice (Roberts et al., 1990). I cannot go there in a brief
paper on demography. I work from an older referent point -
minority status -- a term widely critiqued now as an anachronism
because the "minority" label is frequently applied to the
numerical majority in many urban regions. The projection of the
U.S. Census Bureau that Americans of European descent will be a
scant majority in approximately 30 years is one of the most
oft-quoted statistics in the minority and disability literature
(middle projections, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

But the minority concept has potent meaning beyond the literal
definition -- it is synonymous with a differences in political
power, lack of access, and inequity in wealth (Cross et al,
1989; Harry, 1994). "Minority," as it is traditionally used is
still meaningfully linked to racial politics and our principles
of civil rights and equity. As Chicago Tribune columnist
Clarence Page (1999) noted recently, "black is not just a race.
It is an interest group waiting to be reassured". The minority
concept is also directly related to emerging concepts of
self-identify within the disability community (Hahn, 1993), a
key ingredient in any discussion of race and disability. The
central point in the matter of word choice is consistency with
what I perceive to be the most fundamental issue of race
relations - political power and economic inequity.

Disability. Much of the balance of the paper is an extended
recitation of disability statistics. Let me state at the outset
that a universally accepted accounting of persons with a
disability does not exist. Rather, there are different estimates
under varying survey schemes and sampling frames. The
fundamental source of variability is the matter of definition;
indeed, some analysts argue whether disability is in fact a
"countable" entity (Zola, 1993). The "approaches" to disability
data are best viewed as crude approximations at a point in time,
with considerable, but not total, communality. Discrepancies
between estimates underscore the fluidity of the disability
construct and the vagaries of identification. In the end, the
act of disability identification is a judgement on the human
condition. This is my caveat in interpreting the data that
follow -- disability is a contested concept and the reader of
disability data must not presume there is a one true or better
number representing Americans with a disability (Fujiura, in
press).

Statistical summaries of disability typically employ definitions
based on: (1) the presence of a physical or health impairment or
(2) an assessment "loss of function." Either concept is common
to everyday experience. In practice however, layers of nuance
are revealed. Impairments may not functionally affect an
individual's life. Function is not so readily operationalized --
which skills or functions are most important? What is the
threshold of loss? Are thresholds absolute or relative? To what
extent are external accommodations - assistive devices or
environmental modifications incorporated into the definition?

This latter questions in part reflects a third perspective best
represented by the (still evolving) notion "restricted
participation" in life situations in the ICIDH-2. Here, the
defining element is the interchange of person-level
characteristics with the social context or environmental
setting. The challenge of translating these concepts into easily
administered "head counts" is enormous. In fact, under what
might be termed, "situational disablement" paradigms, the
principle measurement unit is not the person, but rather the
specific interaction. In others, the logical manifestation of a
new paradigm of disability surveillance system would be a
statistical summary of interactions within a society, not
persons. The simple dichotomy of Americans into those "disabled"
or not is not particularly relevant from this perspective. To
date, no large scale statistical surveillance efforts have
incorporated these conceptual schemes (Fujiura, in press).

Policy Implications

In the balance of this presentation I begin each section with
the policy implication, and outline my rationale with what I
consider the relevant demographic trends. Again, the unifying
theme is the meaning of race to the field of disability.

Race, Ethnicity, and the American Underclass

The disability/rehabilitation field must avoid defining the
minority agenda in the disability field only in terms of color.
This represents the most superficial form of redress. It should
be about those un-served and under-served. Do not misinterpret
the shift in emphasis - illness, injury, chronic health
conditions, and disability are non-randomly distributed across
racial and ethnic boundaries (Adams & Marano, 1995; Fujiura &
Yamaki 1997; LaPlante & Carlson, 1996; McNeil, 1993). Shown in
Figure 1 are disability prevalence rates across groups employing
the two different U.S. statistical systems -- the 1995 Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) out of the Bureau of the
Census and the 1996 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS;
Fujiura et al., 1998; McNeil, 1997). Disability in the SIPP is
defined using the very specific functional limitations ("can you
lift 10 pounds?") definition while the NHIS employs a broader
definition of disability - one based on limitations in major
life activity domains ("are you limited in employment?"). The
figures illustrate the general consistency across definitions
and data sets with very high rates among Native Americans and
what appear to be approximately comparable rates among white and
black Americans. While the overall rates are lower in the NHIS
as you would expect in a more global definition - the general
pattern is similar to that of the SIPP, shown on the left side.

Since disability rates are profoundly affected by age and
minority populations are significantly younger, Figure 1
obscures important population differences in disablement rates.
With age adjusted, what appear to be a relatively narrow
differences in prevalence widen considerably with significantly
higher rates among minorities.

Table 1 also underscores the profound interactions of race and
ethnic group with aging, an issue of considerable significance
to the disability and diversity agenda and one that I will
return to.

Race or ethnicity do not "cause" disability. While not a
complete explanation, the differences most certainly lie in the
conditions related to minority status in America - in
particular, poverty and the conditions of risk associated with
poverty. Though hardly a new proposition, the interconnection of
disability, minority status, and poverty has not been
systematically investigated on a national basis. Some context is
necessary before elaboration of this last point. In the midst of
this historic economic expansion one must underscore the fact
that poverty remains an issue of considerable importance. Shown
in Figure 3 is a 22-year summary of poverty rates across major
racial/ethnic groups.

Despite significant and widely publicized declines in the
proportion of Americans living in poverty, the absolute numbers
are large (36 million in 1997) with substantial disparities
across groups. A second feature of the economic dynamics of the
latter part of the century - and one of great potential concern
to the demographics of disability - are trends in the
distribution of wealth and poverty in the nation. Shown here are
50 years of the Gini Index, a statistical summary of the
distribution of income in the U.S. The higher the value, the
greater the concentration of wealth among a smaller number of
households.

Of great concern is the steadily increasing disparity in
economic wealth during what has been an economic expansion of
historic proportions (U.S. Census, 1997). Many economic dynamics
are represented in this paradox of increased disparity in an
expanding economy. An important factor has been the two-tier
growth in employment with many low income service positions and
relatively small gains in highly compensated positions.
Underscored in the Gini index is the fragmentation of the
American middle-class into an increasingly bi-modal distribution
- the "winners" and "losers" of the expansion, and equally
important, the persistent underclass largely unaffected by
domestic prosperity. All boats have not risen equally in the
rising tide of affluence.

If American minorities are more likely to be poor, and if
poverty is linked to disability, then it stands to reason that
if poverty were extracted from the equation, differences between
racial and ethnic groups should be greatly attenuated. Indeed
that is what we find. Using data from the SIPP, Fujiura et al.
(1998) found modest but largely non-significant differences
between groups within income level. Group differences for the
most part, were between the poor and the non-poor.

The overhead underscores the importance of incorporating poverty
in the discussion of race and disability.

Do not interpret the lack of differences across group as an
indicator of the irrelevance of minority status. The population
base is shifting due to differential birth rates, immigration,
and exposure to risk. Fujiura et al. (1998) report substantially
greater growth in total numbers of persons with a disability
from ethnic/racial minorities --50.4% growth in total population
versus across 11.3% for White non-Hispanic Americans.
Furthermore, significantly greater growth in absolute population
size is seen across all age cohorts, with greatest growth among
the young.

Nonetheless, I conclude with the opening premise - color is not
the most relevant distinction. A policy agenda based on race
alone serves to exclude natural coalitions based broadly on need
and inequity -- a more stable common ground for our diverse
groups. I will return to this point.

The Family

Why do we partition deliberations regarding the family? The more
sophisticated concepts of disability in recent years are
anchored in the individual experience and interactions with
environment and culture. Since the majority of Americans do not
live alone it would seem the context and character of household
setting and those it is shared with should be a factor of
considerable immediacy and importance.

The pie chart graphically illustrates the importance of family
context for adults with a disability (data adapted from Fujiura
et al., 1998). Households were classified according to the
status and age of the member in the following order of
precedence: (1) household head with a disability, (2) disabled
spouse of head, (3) disabled adult child or other relative
(there were approximately 100 thousand households with both an
adult and a child under the age of 18 years identified as having
a disability - such data were incorporated into summaries of
both adult and child households). The critical point I want to
underscore in this chart is the fact - perhaps obvious to some -
that the vast majority of Americans (67.5%) with a disability
live with spouses, are parents of children, or live as an adult
in a parent or relative's home (Fujiura, 1999). A minority live
alone or with an unrelated roommate. Yet the family perspective
is rarely the focus of disability policy. Family concerns, much
like minority concerns, are often relegated to the category of
"special interest."

Poverty scholarship in recent years increasingly emphasizes
family and family structure (Lerman, 1996). Our disability
demographics affirm the importance of the interrelationship
(e.g., Fujiura, 1998).

Poverty affects some families more than others. In this
comparison I summarize poverty rates among "non-disability
households" and "disability households" (households that include
at least one child with a disability); single-head households
are far more likely to live in poverty. This is to be expected.
The effect is most pronounced among minority children. What is
notable in the statistics is the sheer magnitude of poverty
among single parent, primarily female-headed households. The
data for adults were not dissimilar - though less dramatic. If
you have a disability in America, and you are from a minority
group, odds are that you and your family live in poverty and
that you will be poorer than others of your class and color.

The interpretation of these numbers is indeterminate at this
time. To what extent do households fall into poverty because of
the disability and loss of household income? To what extent is
the disability an outcome? While compelling questions, they are
less critical than the fact and extraordinary size of the
constituencies.

In a just completed study of childhood disability trends, we
employed a statistical model based on national data from the
NHIS in 1983 versus 1996 (Fujiura and Yamaki, 1999) . The intent
of the analysis was relatively simple -- to examine the
increment in risk associated with single-parent families,
poverty, and racial and ethnic group. In other words, does being
black or being Hispanic in and of itself add to your risk beyond
living in poverty or in an unstable household? (Asian and Native
American children were excluded from the analysis due to
extremely small sample sizes within some groups, for example,
single parent households below poverty). The estimated odds of a
child having a disability were 55% higher in the single parent
household in 1983 and 88% higher in 1996. Poverty was associated
with an 86% increment in risk for disability in 1996. These are
graphically illustrated below.

No additional risk was associated with racial or ethnic minority
status once poverty and family status were statistically
controlled. The single most profound factor emerging from the
analysis was family type. Disability policy must address the
family.

Universalism and Disablement

Coalitions with non-disability constituencies are critical. This
is not a recommendation so much as a restatement of what all of
us know. A great deal of effort has already been invested in
coalition-building and I include this in my list only as a
reaffirmation of its importance. While minority initiatives
within the disability community represent important
awareness-raising efforts, there is a danger of the agenda
becoming formulaic in approach, fragmented into so many isolated
demonstration projects, and largely disconnected from larger
social forces surrounding the disability field.

In the logit regression described in the preceding section,
poverty emerged as a potent predictor of disability status
during the 14 year interval between 1983 and 1996. The
implications of the alteration in the relationship between
poverty and disability prevalence can be seen graphically in
Figure 9 (data from Fujiura & Yamaki, in press).

Shown in the figure is a relatively flat rate of disability over
time among children at or above the poverty level. In contrast,
rates among children below the poverty level increased
dramatically after the mid-1980's. Similar trends are observed
when plotting data across groups that are demographic proxies
for poverty - minority group and family structure. Prevalence
rates track sharply upward as well for black children and
children from single parent families (without statistical
adjustments for poverty level).

Rising prevalence only among the poor suggests an exacerbation
of the link between poverty and the family and disability. The
meaning of this change is unclear at this time. Causal ambiguity
confounds interpretation of the poverty-disability association.
Was there greater exposure to conditions of risk? Conversely,
does onset of disablement simply exaggerate existing financial
problems among economically marginal families? Is the rise an
illusion, representing greater awareness of disability rather
than actual increases? Certainly effects such as these and other
unidentified determinants operate simultaneously at some level
of effect. Whatever the portrayal of causality, the data
underscore the growing importance of poverty in the disability
dialogue - whether as real increases in prevalence or greater
recognition of need within the communities of the American poor.

The point here is the importance of finding common cause in
poverty policy and advocacy generally. Our perspectives on the
population of Americans with a disability tend to be predicated,
explicitly or not, on the assumption of fixed populations. We
are forever trying to determine the prevalence of some condition
and much of our advocacy work focuses on expanding a base system
of services measured against a relatively static population.
While issues of income and economic well being represent
long-held concerns for the disability community, the trend data
suggests more fundamental policy challenges than greater
outreach or culturally sensitive service delivery and technical
assistance.

Other data on trends across race and economic status underscore
the intersection of broader domestic policy concerns with
disability priorities. Figure 10 below illustrates the link
between the aging, poverty, and disablement agendas in the
context of minority concerns. Only low income Americans are
represented in the figure.

Despite the widely publicized declines in rates of disablement
among America's older population, the link between aging and
acquired disability is one of profound importance. It is the
single most important dynamic in disability demography. The
figure illustrates three central themes: (1) the vulnerability
of older Americans to significant functional limitations, (2)
the extraordinary exposure of low income older Americans to
disability - largely attributable to onset of chronic diseases
or occupational injury, and (3) the longstanding and still
continuing health crisis in the Native American community.

Employment data represents a third and final example of the need
for "common cause" I present national employment data. Comparing
disability employment statistics across racial and ethnic group
introduces complexities in interpretation because of the early
onset of chronic illness and greater exposure to occupational
hazards. It is impossible to separate employment rate
differences that are attributable to systematic biases such as
lack of access or opportunity versus loss of capacity that
affect minority workers to a greater extent (due to early onset
of chronic illness, differential exposure to injury, etc.). My
focus here is on bias and I present data on a life-long
condition, developmental disability.

These are data based on work national employment rates for
Americans with a developmental disability Yamaki and Fujiura
(1999). Shown on the left side of Figure 11 is the US employment
profile in 1996 -- approximately two-thirds of all Americans
between the ages of 22 and 64 had worked within two weeks of the
interview. On the right are summarized the employment statistics
for Americans with a developmental disability. If you have a
significant disability, odds are your employment profile is
bleak. It is worse if you are a minority. I might add that the
rate of employment overstates the employment picture - in the
analysis of earnings using the SIPP, wage earnings are typically
in the range of $500-600 a month among those employed (Yamaki &
Fujiura, 1999).

While it is true the differences we see between Americans with
and without a disability, and the differences we see between
white and minority America, are compounded and exacerbated among
minorities with a disability, the central point is that the core
dynamics transcend the disability field itself. It is more than
better methods of vocational training or placement services and
outreach. Equity demands some hard analyses of the secondary
employment market, issues of health care access for the working
poor, and our social welfare systems for the vulnerable. Common
cause will be found.

Cultural Competence

The Executive Director of the Urban League in 1968, Whitney M.
Young, made a presentation to a meeting of the International
League of Societies for the Mentally Handicapped. He said, "The
Negro has been studied, inspected, analyzed, and dissected ad
infinitum. Thank you for so much attention." Instead he
suggested, time would be better spent addressing bias, lack of
access, the paucity of black professionals, and the crushing
poverty that put their children at risk.

I agree on the importance of the competence agenda, but
individuals and organizations must not be deluded into the
presumption that cultural competency is the sole form of redress
for the core issues confronting minorities with a disability. It
is a critical piece of the equity and access puzzle but not the
only piece. Cultural competence, as commonly applied, plays out
in our traditional professional-client contexts. We provide
culturally competent services. We respect the cultural
perspectives of those we serve (Jaskulski, 1993). A competency
agenda however, that does not challenge organizations or
individuals to directly address the source of inequity is only
half a solution. One is merely better equipped to deal with the
aftermath of those inequities.

Policy Implementation

I reviewed a report summarizing a national study of minority
participation in the nation's disability system. In the
executive summary, the following findings were reported:

  * poverty is one of the main impediments to participation and
    advocacy;
  * minority persons do not have full knowledge and do not fully
    utilize the services and programs of nearby agencies;
  * there has been a failure to bring the minority clients and
    professionals into the mainstream of the movement;
  * while minorities are proportionately represented among
    employees of disability service programs, they are rarely
    represented in the highest categories of employment as
    professionals or in administrative leadership;
  * leadership is essential to remediate these problems, the
    field needs to expand outreach and technical assistance,
    providers need to be sensitive to ethnic needs and
    sensitivities, consumers need to be directly involved on
    boards, advisory committees, and in research.

These findings and recommendations should strike the reader as
both reasonable and familiar. Virtually all policy documents on
minorities and disability incorporate some or all of these
points (e.g., National Council on Disability, 1999; President's
Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, 1991) I
should note also that the recommendations listed above were
taken from a report produced by the Bureau of Developmental
Disabilities (the predecessor to the U.S. Administration on
Developmental Disabilities) over two decades ago (Bureau of
Developmental Disabilities, 1979)!

I am struck by the void in what we know about the implementation
of the many minority and disability initiatives launched over
the years. This is of more than academic interest. The long view
can tell us about past mistakes or innovations that have been
forgotten. What these events were and where they led should be
of great interest to those of us interested in informing the
future. I would like very much for us to invest some effort in
understanding our past.

The constancy of the of the minority agenda over the years
suggests that whatever good and innovative ideas have been
implemented over the past generation, they either have been
inadequate in scope and magnitude or are not directly addressing
core problems. I know that many projects have been funded,
research conducted, and language inserted into our legislation
and bylaws and program standards. Most certainly these changes
are having their cumulative positive impact. But to what net
effect have all the initiatives in the past two decades come to?
How much greater is access now than before? To what extent have
minority disability professionals assumed positions of
leadership? How well do we understand how our own perspectives
on race have affected our conduct and thinking in the field of
disability? Not well, not yet.

Leadership

The notion of affirmative action is badly bruised today, but the
premise - not of quotas but of aggressive outreach and
recruitment and opportunity - must be held on to dearly in the
disability field. We should not let backwash of the affirmative
action debates to negatively impact the desperate need within
our field to nurture a new and different generation of
leadership. It will be a challenge. Minority recruitment
initiatives, youth leadership programs and the like have long
been fixtures in the disability field. I cannot comment on their
effectiveness system-wide. My impression is that there is a pool
of professional talent increasing in both size and diversity. I
would argue however, for a reinvestment in the effort. I am
increasingly concerned about a "glass ceiling" for the few that
have penetrated into management and a calcification into
formulaic approaches: token representation on committees,
councils, advisory panels and similar roles ancillary to the
leadership of the field. It is extraordinarily difficult finding
talented and capable professionals committed to disability.

As the figure shows, the number of minority graduate level
students in disciplines related, directly or indirectly, to
disability issues is not compelling. While we have no national
data on career-level decisions, I suspect the numbers that
commit to a disability related field is far more discouraging. I
have no comparable information for graduate students with
disability. In 1994 only 29,051 freshmen with a disability
entered 4-year universities and approximately 23% of these were
minorities.

The minority and disability agenda will not move forward without
an active and passionately involved leadership. This requires a
generation of professionals from minority constituencies with
disabilities in positions of influence and power who find it in
their own self-interest to change things. We need to recruit and
mentor a very different generation of research, administrative,
and professional leadership.

Concluding Comments

Does race matter? The intent of the charts and the other
analyses was not to dismiss color-based considerations within
our field nor to support them, but rather to suggest that
"minority" issues are multi-layered. Poverty, lack of access,
economic inequity confounds and complicates discussions of race.
My answer is equivocal -- yes and no.

The dialogue we should engage in has two faces: to those within
the minority and disability movement- we must look beyond race.
Skin color matters, but I do not think we have truly deeply
considered the many ways that it does and does not and until we
move beyond vague allusions to racism or discrimination and
articulate the specifics of bias in the disability field,
specific solutions will not be forthcoming.

No, race does not matter, because a focus on color alone is --
in the words of one political commentator -- "reform on the
cheap" (Page, 1999) and does not address underlying inequities
of access across class lines in this nation.

To those who do not see themselves as directly invested in the
minority and disability agenda I state the obvious - one cannot
avoid the significance of skin color in this country. Minority
status in America serves as a proxy for inequity, for poverty
and its attendant risks. A concern for "minority affairs" is a
concern for issues infused into the very fabric of American
life. In the realm of human service one cannot not be concerned
with minority affairs. The association of poverty status and
other forms of social disadvantage to disability and minority
status is a fixture in American disablement paradigms.
Unfortunately, the topic has become something of a "white noise"
in the field -- acknowledged but largely relegated to the
background of our deliberations. The demographic data and
emerging trends highlighted here underscore the fundamental
importance of inequity, across both color and class, for
American disability policy.

Citations

Adams, P.F. & Marano, M.A. (1995). Current estimates from the
National Health Interview Survey, 1994. National Center for
Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics 10 (193).

Advisory Board to the President's Initiative on Race (1998). One
America in the 21st Century: Forging a New Future. Washington,
D.C.

Bureau of Developmental Disabilities (1979). The developmental
disabilities movement: A national study of minority
participation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.

Clark, G.N. (1972). Social science in the age of Newton. In
Oberschall, A. (Ed.), The establishment of empirical sociology:
Studies in continuity, discontinuity, and institutionalization
(pp 15-30). New York: Harper and Row.

Datta, L.E. (1982). Strange bedfellows: The politics of
qualitative methods. American Behavioral Scientist, 26, 133-144.

Fujiura, G.T. (1994). Research perspectives and the community
living experience. In M.F. Hayden & B. Abery (Eds.), Challenges
for a service system in transition: Ensuring quality community
experiences for persons with developmental disabilities.
Baltimore: Brookes.

Fujiura, G.T. & Yamaki, K. (1997). An analysis of ethnic
variations in developmental disability: Prevalence and household
economic status. Mental Retardation, 35, 286-294.

Fujiura, G.T. (1998). Demography of family households. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 225-235.

Fujiura, G.T., Yamaki, K., Czechowicz, S. (1998). Disability
Among Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the United States. Journal
of Disability Policy Studies, 9, 111-130.

Fujiura, G.T. (1999). Demographic summaries from the SIPP and
NHIS. Unpublished analyses. Chicago: Department of Disability
and Human Development, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Fujiura, G.T. & Yamaki, K. (1999). Trends in demography of
childhood poverty and disability. Exceptional Children, 66
(Winter), 1-13.

Fujiura, G.T. & Rutkowski, (in press). Disability statistics. In
G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds). Handbook of disability
studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hahn, H. (1993). The political implications of disability
definitions and data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4,
41-52.

Jaskulski, T. (1993). Building cultural competence in the
disability community. Washington, D.C.: National Council of
Developmental Disabilities Councils.

Kendall, M.G. & Stuart, A. (1967). The advanced theory of
statistics. Volume 2. New York: Hafner Publication Company.

Krieger, N. (1999). Questioning epidemiology: Objectivity,
advocacy, and socially responsible science. American Journal of
Public Health, 89, 1151-1152.

LaPlante, M.P. & Carlson, D. (1996). Disability in the United
States: Prevalence and causes, 1992. Disability Statistics
Report (7). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Lerman, R.I. (1996). The impact of the changing U.S. family
structure on child poverty and income inequality. Economica, 63,
119-139.

McNeil, J.M. (1993). Americans with disabilities: 1991-92. U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P70-33, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

McNeil, J. (1997). Americans with disabilities: 1994-1995.
Current Population Reports, P70-61.

National Council on Disability (1999). Lift every voice:
Modernizing Disability Policies and Programs to Serve a Diverse
Nation. Washington, D.C.

Oberschall, A. (1972). The sociological study of the history of
social research. In Oberschall, A. (Ed.), The establishment of
empirical sociology: Studies in continuity, discontinuity, and
institutionalization (pp 2-14). New York: Harper and Row.

Page, C. (1999). Shifting school agenda from race to class.
Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1999.

President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
(1991). Future frontiers in the employment of minority persons
with disabilities. Washington, D.C.

Roberts, R. Barclay-McLaughlin, G., Cleveland, J., Colston, W.,
Malach, R., Mulvey, L., Rodriguez, G., Thomas, T., & Ynoemitsu,
D. (1990). Workbook for developing culturally competent programs
for families of children with special needs. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Child Development Center.

Savitz, D.A., Poole, C., & Miller, W.C. (1999). Reassessing the
role of epidemiology in public health. American Journal of
Public Health, 89, 1158-1161.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996a). Population projections of the
U.S. by age, sex, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2010. Current
Population Reports, P25-1130. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996b). Poverty in the United States:
1996. Current Population Reports, Series P60-198. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997). A brief look at postwar U.S.
income inequality. Current Population Reports, P60-191. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Education (1998). Graduates of US colleges
and universities. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Yamaki, K. & Fujiura, G.T. (1999). Employment and economic
status of Americans with developmental disabilities. Unpublished
analysis. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Young, W.M. (1969). Poverty, intelligence, and life in the inner
city. Mental Retardation, 7, 24-29.

Zola, I.K. (1993). Disability statistics, what we count and what
it tells us: A personal and political analysis. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 4, 9-39.

----------
End of Document





-- 
TNET Mail-To-News Gateway Version - 1.6
For information about this gateway email programs@tnet.com